Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Octavius George Willey, Esquire, C.B.E., Member for Cleveland, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

District Heating Committee

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his Department are represented on the Committee on District Heating set up by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir.

Nationalised Industries (Capital Investment)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the extent of the amended planned rate of capital investment in the nationalised gas and electricity industries commensurate or otherwise with the increased rate of planned capital investment by the National Coal Board from £33 million to £38 million during 1952; and to what extent these amendments are on account of a greater rate of increase in production facilities or higher cost.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: For gas and electricity, the position remains as stated in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 11th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Generating Capacity

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the estimated deficit, expressed as a percentage of

maximum generating capacity, at peak hours during the period November, 1952, to February, 1953, of anticipated maximum generating capacity of the British Electricity Authority power houses compared with anticipated maximum demand, each excluding private generators, and both in respect of an average cold winter day and a very cold spell.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: These estimates, which are inevitably tentative, are for a cold spell about 12 per cent. and for severe weather about 18 per cent. of the probable available capacity.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the reduction in the rate of load spreading in the forthcoming winter, is my right hon. Friend reasonably confident that it will be sufficient to meet all foreseeable contingencies?

Mr. Lloyd: It would be very unwise to be complacent in this matter, but I believe that the committee have struck a fair balance between the need for economy and avoiding putting too much inconvenience upon industry and the workers in industry.

Sir A. Gridley: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the percentages he has given, those figures are based upon the normal rated capacity of the plant or whether they have taken into account the overload capacity for which modern equipment is designed? Secondly, have the figures allowed for additional private plants that are put in by industrialists in the course of the present year?

Mr. Lloyd: The capacity is the maximum generating capacity minus that part of the plant which is expected by the B.E.A. normally to be out of commission due to breakdowns. Private generators are an integral part of the economy that it is hoped to achieve in the course of load spreading.

Sir A. Gridley: That does not quite answer my first question: whether the capacity of the new plant—the more modern plant that has been put in this year and in immediately preceding years—is based on the normal rated output capacity or on the overload capacity, which is usually 25 per cent. for two years.

Mr. Lloyd: I should not like to give a categorical answer on that technical point without inquiring of the B.E.A.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Minister of Labour, in making his announcement on this matter last Tuesday, specifically exhorted all owners of independent generating plant to use them to maximum capacity in the forthcoming winter?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, and I should like strongly to associate myself with that.

Gloucester City Centre (Expenditure)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has now completed his examination of the facts relating to expenditure by the Midlands Electricity Board in respect of the Gloucester City Electricity Centre opened on 5th November, 1951; and what action he proposes to take in regard to expenditure incurred in excess of the licensed figure.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Merchants' Stocks (Credit Limit)

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in order to enable coal merchants to build up their stocks in the national interest during the summer months, he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board, under Section 3 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, to extend their limit of 14 days' credit to coal merchants.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Storey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the demands of their clients for credit and the limitation of the Coal Board in giving credit is having a very bad effect on the storing of coal by coal merchants for next winter? Will he not reconsider his decision?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a matter primarily for the Coal Board, but their credit is often extended for a good deal longer than 14 days. It goes up, in some cases, to six weeks.

Mr. Storey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency people are not getting that extended credit and

that this is holding up the storage of coal?

Mr. Lloyd: It would depend on the circumstances, but if my hon. Friend sends me details of the conditions to which he refers I shall examine them.

Stocks, Birmingham

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that Birmingham coal merchants are not getting enough coal to meet the needs of the growing population in the city; that some merchants at present have less than one day's supplies in stock, and that in consequence domestic consumers are unable to stock coal for the winter; and if he will take the necessary steps to enable domestic consumers to obtain supplies during the remaining weeks of the summer in preparation for the winter.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The receipts and sales of the Birmingham merchants are well up to the average and their stocks are greater than in either of the last two years.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that the two largest suppliers in Birmingham, the Birmingham Co-operative Society, who have 65,000 registered customers, and the Ten Acres and Stirchley Co-operative Society, who have 29,000 on their books have only two days' stock, whereas they should have 14 days' stock. Is he aware that in my constituency two dealers have no coal whatever and are down by 20 tons and 30 tons respectively from 1st May? Will he re-examine the situation in Birmingham, especially in the light of his statement in which he appealed to merchants and consumers to stock up? May I have an answer?

Mr. Lloyd: The position is that in Birmingham it is the normal practice for the merchants to carry relatively small stocks in the earlier part of the summer. The Birmingham merchants normally begin their serious stocking up about this time of the year, about the middle of July when factory holidays are beginning.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend examined the political content of this Question or whether, in fact there is any foundation for the allegation? A large number of people in Birmingham are very well satisfied with the service they are getting.

Mr. Yates: Does the Minister realise that I confirmed the facts stated in my Question and supplementary with the dealers concerned over the week-end and that I have here a Press statement which describes his request to people to stock coal as "sheer bunkum"?

Mr. Lloyd: It is possible that the hon. Gentleman is examining these facts and reports in the light of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about the political content of the Question. I should inform the House that I had been asked by responsible leaders of the coal merchants in this country to make the appeal for more stocking. While that undoubtedly is a good thing to do at present, we must not be surprised if individual coal merchants in particular parts of the country agitate to improve their position, particularly when they know that the Minister comes from the city, but so far as I am concerned I am for fair shares in coal.

Mr. T. Brown: Is the Minister satisfied with the distributive and sales agency in the City of Birmingham? Is he aware that last year we had many complaints from the Birmingham area and there seems to be some weakness on the sales and distributive side of the coal industry in Birmingham?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not heard any complaints of that.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY LAW

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the speculations taking place in reversions of long leases, he is yet in a position to make any statement of Government policy.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave on 12th May.

Mr. Donnelly: Is not this the same answer which we have been getting ever since this Parliament assembled? Did not the party opposite promise at the General Election to do something about leasehold reform? What does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by so shaming his colleagues by now openly

admitting that they promised something when they did not know when they were going to do it?

The Attorney-General: I think the hon. Member is well aware from previous Questions he has asked that the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951, does not expire until the midsummer of 1953 and that it has been stated that legislation will be introduced in due course to take its place. It is not possible to make a statement about legislation which is not possible until next Session.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the assurance still hold good that there is to be other legislation on the Statute Book before the present legislation conies to an end?

The Attorney-General: I thought I had already made that clear.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Attorney-General, in view of the Government's promised legislation on leaseholds, what guidance hon. Members should give to their constituents who are now being offered the freehold of small properties held on long leases which are shortly due to fall in.

The Attorney-General: I am not in a position to say what form the legislation will take and in any event I do not think it is appropriate for me to advise hon. Members on matters of this kind.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Attorney-General realise that we are grateful to him for promising us, almost for the first time, that there is to be legislation next Session and that if he adheres to that promise we shall now know what to advise our constituents to do?

The Attorney-General: I think it is quite clear that what I have said in regard to legislation is exactly what I have said whenever I have been asked Questions. It is that before the present legislation expires other legislation will have to be introduced to take its place.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the urgency, is there any chance that reason will prevail and that we can get this legislation before we have to deal with the Transport Bill?

CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN LEAGUE

Mr. Driberg: asked the Attorney-General if he will now make a further statement on the activities of the Conservative Christian League.

The Attorney-General: I have now received and considered a report from the Director of Public Prosecutions on this case. It does not, in my opinion, disclose a prima facie ease of the commission of any criminal offence.

Mr. Driberg: Can we take it that the decision not to prosecute has nothing to do with the embarrassment which might be caused to Lord Woolton and other eminent Conservatives who sent testimonials to this charlatan which he used in his rackets?

The Attorney-General: As in the case of my predecessor, my decisions are not influenced by political considerations.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it has been publicly announced on many occasions that this organisation has nothing whatever to do with the Conservative Party and that it is already thoroughly discredited throughout the country?

DEAN OF CANTERBURY

Miss Ward: asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the recent visit of the Dean of Canterbury to the Far East and of his accusations abroad and in this country prejudicial to the interests of Her Majesty's subjects, he has considered prosecuting him on a charge of treason for spreading enemy propaganda.

The Attorney-General: In my opinion the evidence available does not disclose a prima facie case of treason.

Miss Ward: Would my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that if such action were taken it would provide an invaluable opportunity of proving the falsity of the evidence of this wicked and irresponsible old man?

The Attorney-General: My decision has had to be based on the unfortunate fact that it will not provide such an opportunity.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In the event of this witch hunt succeeding, will the Dean be hanged at Tynemouth or Canterbury?

Major Legge-Bourke: Before he took the decision announced in answer to the Question, did my hon. and learned Friend consider the report which appeared in the Press this morning regarding some of the statements that the Dean apparently made in China or since he came home?

The Attorney-General: I have considered all the evidence so far put before me, but if my hon. and gallant Friend or anyone else has any further evidence he would like to put before me I will consider it.

Mr. Snow: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman remember the humiliations to which the last eminent person who called a priest "turbulent" was subjected?

RE-ARMAMENT (EXPORTS TO SPAIN)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what safeguards he has arranged to ensure that the re-armament of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries will not be prejudiced by the supply of materials and weapons to Spain.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The re-armament needs of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries are amply safeguarded. The normal licensing procedure which governs exports of military material to foreign countries will apply equally in the case of Spain.

Mr. Chetwynd: As the economic need seems to be the only consideration now in this case, may I take it from that answer that economic need will be the only consideration in supplying arms to a democratic country such as Israel?

Mr. Nutting: My right hon. Friend dealt with this matter very clearly in answering Questions the other day. He said that not only do we attach great importance to the economic possibility of getting stuff we require from Spain, but there are also, of course, defence requirements to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: Whilst expressing no opinion on the merits or possible demerits of the Question, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can say to what extent and in what volume arms are being supplied to Spain? It is a matter of interest to hon. Members.

Mr. Nutting: No arms have yet been supplied to Spain because the policy has only just come into effect.

FORCED LABOUR (U.N. INQUIRY)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what evidence he proposes to submit to the United Nations organisation committee investigating the question of forced labour.

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government have, at the request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, answered a questionnaire from the committee, and provided certain documents such as copies of the Corrective Labour Codex of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic and evidence of the use of forced labour in the Soviet Union and the Soviet-dominated States of Eastern Europe.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that forced labour is conscripted from Scotland, taken to Korea and employed there in the form of conscripted soldiers? Will he take that form of forced labour into consideration and present that to the committee?

Mr. Nutting: That would not be in accordance with the terms of reference to the committee about which the hon. Member has asked me. That is a committee which was set up to study the nature and extent of the problem raised by the existence in the world of systems of forced or corrective labour which are employed as a means of politicial coercion or punishment for the holding of political views.

Mr. Woodburn: Reports have appeared in the Press of material which has been presented to the United Nations on this subject. Could that information be made available to Members in the Library, so that they can study it?

Mr. Nutting: I think that this evidence is already available because the United

Nations documents which contain it are received by the House of Commons Library, but I will make certain that that is so.

WESTERN ZONE, GERMANY (KIDNAPPINGS)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has on the kidnapping of Dr. Linse; and what representations have been made to the Soviet Government and the Russian and German authorities in East Berlin on the kidnapping from the Western zone.

Mr. Nutting: Dr. Linse, a German who is a leading member of the anti-Communist Association of Free Lawyers of the Soviet Zone, was kidnapped early on 8th June. According to Press reports, he was seized as he left his house in the American sector, dragged into a car and driven away towards the Soviet zonal boundary where East German policemen at once raised the barrier to let the car through. The pursuers were fired on by the kidnappers.
A protest was made by the American Commandant on 8th July to the Soviet Control Commission, asking for the immediate release of Dr. Linse.

Mr. Grimond: Is this not one of a long series of kidnappings, what replies have been received to any protests, and can anything be done to protect well known personalities like the Dr. Linse from seizure in Western Berlin and other parts of Germany?

Mr. Nutting: The question of countermeasures is now being discussed in Berlin between the authorities concerned. It is true that other kidnappings have taken place. In the most recent event, in which about 40 German workers were kidnapped by the Russians, they were returned after protests had been lodged. I should prefer for the moment not to prejudge this issue. We are awaiting a reply from the Soviet authorities.

KOREAN WAR ZONE (ENTRY)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations are held between Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations


Command before a British subject is given permission to enter the Korean war zone.

Mr. Nutting: No consultations are held between Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations Command. Clearance for official civilian visitors is applied for by Her Majesty's Embassy in Tokyo. Clearance for military personnel is obtained through military channels. Other civilians must apply in person to the Adjutant General's section of the United Nations Command in Tokyo; if their application is approved, they must then obtain a Korean visa from the Korean Mission there.

Mr. Peyton: Would my hon. Friend indicate to the United Nations Command that it would, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, be most undesirable to give facilities to the Dean of Canterbury in view of his determination on every possible occasion to blacken the name of this country by bringing forward charges which are quite unfounded and entirely worthless?

Mr. Nutting: I have no doubt that the United Nations Command, who decide upon these matters, have taken due note of the remarks and allegations made by the Dean of Canterbury, and have drawn the appropriate conclusion from them. With reference to the Dean of Canterbury's activities and the effect which they may have on the reputation of this country, we consider that his charges have already been amply answered and completely destroyed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Dump, Bradwell Bay

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the considerable waste of transport and petrol involved in the maintenance of his Department's dump of feedingstuffs on the former aerodrome at Bradwell Bay, Essex; and if he will consider the removal of this dump to some more accessible place.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): Bradwell Bay is only one of many storage points for feedingstuffs in the London Port area. It must continue to be used until we are able to obtain sufficient suitable accommodation nearer London.

Mr. Driberg: Has the Minister's attention been called to the comprehensive article on this dump in a recent issue of the "Farmer and Stock-breeder," and could he say how far is the furthest point served from this dump? Is he aware that people who know the place strongly support what is said in the article?

Major Lloyd George: I have not seen the article, but the area which London Port serves extends roughly from about Norfolk in the north to Dorset in the south-west—that is the London Port area. We are driven to use this storage point because normal facilities in the London Port area are not available at the moment.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Minister aware that this place is 50 miles east of London and is reached by very narrow, winding roads? It is surely quite uneconomic to serve Dorset from there.

Major Lloyd George: I said that Norfolk is in the north of the area. That is nearer Bradwell Bay than Dorset. London Port covers the whole of that area.

Japanese Shipping (Charter)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food why, and for what purposes, he has chartered Japanese shipping.

Major Lloyd George: Foreign ships, including Japanese ships, are chartered from time to time on my behalf by the Baltic Exchange Chartering Committee to carry grain purchased by my Department when the positioning and terms are acceptable.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that at present some British boats are tied up, will the Minister keep this matter under very active review?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly.

Manufacturing Sugar (Prices)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the halving of freight rates, he will now reduce the price of sugar sold to manufacturers.

Major Lloyd George: Freight rates have fluctuated widely in the past 12 months, and it is not practicable to adjust prices to reflect every change in these rates as it occurs.

Mr. Willey: But if, over a reasonable period, freight rates remain where they are, will the Minister then review the question of the price of sugar to manufacturers?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we look at this question over the whole 12 months. It is not possible to change prices with each fluctuation of rates. We shall watch the position over the year, and if possible try to reduce prices.

Rationed Foods (Take-up)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that rationed foods are not being taken up; and if he will give detailed information as to the amounts of rationed foods not taken up at the latest convenient date.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, but on my information there has been no significant change in the rate of off-take for the last two years. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate particulars of the take-up of ration foods for a number of past periods in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that I have a number of old age pensioners in my constituency who have said that since this Government came into power food subsidies have been reduced, prices have risen and that they cannot afford to take all their rations? Is it not scandalous that the rich should have more rations at the expense of the old people?

Major Lloyd George: That really is not so because the survey which is constantly being made of certain commodi-

DELIVERIES OF RATIONED FOODS TO WHOLESALERS AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ENTITLEMENT




8 weeks to 14th July, 1951
Average for year 1951
8 weeks to 23rd February, 1952
8 weeks to 19th April, 1952
8 weeks to 14th June, 1952








(provisional)


Meat
…
100
100
100
100
100


Bacon
…
98
100
100
100
95


Butter
…
95
99
99
100
100


Margarine
…
89
95
97
99
99


Cooking Fat
…
93
98
95
95
95


Cheese
…
96
95
96
100
100


Tea
…
100
100
100
98
98


Sugar
…
100
100
100
100
100


The above figures include both ration and catering requirements.

ties shows that the higher income groups have taken less bacon, for instance, than the old age pensioners.

Mr. Royle: Is the Minister aware that I have received a letter this morning which contains a statement from a retail meat trader in the constituency of Luton, which is represented by the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, in which a butcher states that a family of nine could afford only 3s. 8d. for meat, and that as a result he was able to sell an 18s. leg of lamb to a family of six?

Major Lloyd George: I have not seen that letter, but the figures which I am putting in the OFFICIAL REPORT SNOW definitely that at the same period last year there was a smaller take up in most commodities than this year.

Mr. Marlowe: Is it not a fact that this is purely a piece of Socialist propaganda?

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister basing his statement on the volume or on the value?

Major Lloyd George: They are a percentage of the volume. I have taken the full offtake as 100 per cent. The ration varies from period to period, as the hon. Member knows. Taking in comparable periods they are comparable figures.

Hon. Members: Of what?

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the Minister himself last week said that rations were not being taken up, which is in contradiction to his reply today, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Following are the particulars:

Ice Cream (Standard)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food when he intends to restore the full standards for ice cream.

Major Lloyd George: When the ingredients are again sufficient for the full standard to be observed without the public going short of ice cream.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Freight Charges, North Scotland

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation this Session to reduce and equalise freight charges in the North of Scotland.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): No. Sir. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any legislative proposals this Session with regard to transport charges other than those contained in the Transport Bill.

Mr. Grimond: As the whole transport policy of the Government is now under discussion, may I ask whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deal with this matter at the same time as they bring in the changes in transport?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a question for the Transport Commission. If there are those, in Scotland or elsewhere, who feel that owing to the remoteness of their homes they have disproportionate difficulties with regard to freight charges, it is up to them to approach the Transport Commission before any freight scheme appears.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the Transport Commission was encouraged to or did set up, or said it set up, a committee to examine this question? Has he any knowledge whether that committee has ever been considered?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that the Cameron Committee reported and that they recognised that their two main recommendations were for consideration by the Commission.

Accidents (Drink or Drugs)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport how many personal injury accidents there were in 1951; and in how many of these cases have the police stated that drink or drugs was a primary factor.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): In 1951, 5,250 persons were killed and 211,243 injured in 178,409 road accidents. In the opinion of the police drink or drugs were the primary factor in 1,146 of these accidents.

Sir H. Williams: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say in how many cases were the persons affected by drinks or drugs driving motor vehicles?

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, Sir, 530 were drivers of cars and 68 were motor cyclists; approximately a half of the total number.

Captain Duncan: Can my hon. Friend say how many were pedestrians?

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, Sir; 379 were pedestrians.

Passenger Fare Increases

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport (1) in coming to a decision on fares and charges what proportion of the central charges of the British Transport Commission he assessed should be borne by freight traffic;
(2) in coming to a decision on fares and charges what proportion of the central charges of the British Transport Commission he assessed should be borne by passenger traffic within the London area; and what proportion by passenger traffic outside the London area.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport (1) in arriving at his decisions on increased fares, what he allocated as an appropriate contribution to the central charges of the British Transport Commission from passenger receipts outside London and from passenger receipts within the London area, respectively;
(2) in arriving at his decisions on increased fares, what he allocated as an appropriate contribution to the central charges of the British Transport Commission from goods traffic carried by British Railways.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The decision about fares was confined entirely to preventing hardships due to disproportionate increases in certain sub-standard fares. It was not based on any assessment by me as to what would be the net revenues—after appropriate deductions for central charges—from fares in the London area, or from railway fares outside, or from railway freight charges.

Mr. Beswick: If all this means that the Minister does not know, may I ask him, in relation to Question No. 33, how he was in a position to say so dogmatically that passenger traffic was being carried on the back of freight traffic if he was unable to get the elementary figures necessary to base such an opinion?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know just as much as the Commission and I am indebted to their annual Reports which point out the difficulty of arriving at any precise apportionment of costs. As for the statement I made, I am again indebted to the Commission, who told me that with regard to fares outside London, the passenger fares will meet specific cost and leave about £7½ million to meet joint expenses, but that those joint expenses come to £70 million. They cannot be precisely allocated, but the Commission are satisfied that the £7½ million is substantially less than passenger fares might appropriately contribute; and inside London they say emphatically that passenger fares will contribute some £6 million less than an appropriate contribution to central charges and provisions.

Mr. Davies: If that is the case, will the Minister now confirm, as passengers outside London do not contribute to central charges, whereas London Transport does contribute, that London is paying more than the rest of the country proportionately?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that that is altogether true. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the annual Report of the Commission which has now been published he will see there is a general improvement everywhere except in the London Transport area.

Mr. Davies: Does the Minister agree that that is true so far as 1951 is concerned, but that on the estimates he has given to this House with regard to increased fares London will contribute

more to the central charges, whereas the rest of the country will not contribute anything?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not disproportionately more.

Mr. Beswick: Is not it a fact that outside London passenger traffic is not making any contribution at all, and, in the Minister's own words, within the London area passengers are making a contribution to the central charges? In that case, why does he put a greater increase on London fares?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, if he will look at this year's annual Report—and it is the future we are dealing with—the Corn-mission draw attention to the fact that all the important carrying activities except London Transport are making, or are coming near to making, a reasonable contribution towards the central charges.

Road Services Depots (Members' Visits)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for hon. Members who so desire to visit depots of British Road Services to see the work that is being done.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no doubt that the Chairman of the British Transport Commission would be pleased to make arrangements to show to any hon. Member, on request, the work being done at British Road Services depots.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the Minister. Would he care to tell us whether he has taken advantage of any arrangement to visit these places?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As soon as I am relieved from daily attendance in the House of Commons I propose to do so.

Mr. Callaghan: Would not it have been far better for the right hon. Gentleman to have done so before making a statement about their inefficiency?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I made no statement about the inefficiency of British Road Service depots. I will make it quite clear and plain to the many thousands of people who are doing sterling work there and elsewhere that we are very grateful to them, but we feel they have been confronted with impossible tasks by the last Socialist Administration.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Minister to refresh his memory by referring to column 484 of HANSARD for 21st May, in which he made an allegation of inefficiency against the Road Haulage Executive and their services? Would he withdraw that completely, because it is untrue?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Member knows perfectly well, I was from the start at pains to make it clear that it was the system which was at fault and not the people.

Mr. Shepherd: If my right hon. Friend is arranging these parties, will he extend them to visits to traders and industrialists, who will tell hon. Members what they think of British Road Services?

Mr. Popplewell: Will the Minister make it his duty to visit these various depots, where he will find that the widespread uneasiness caused by the present denationalisation proposals of the Government has had a tremendous effect on the efficient working of those depots?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall certainly investigate every point of view of the men concerned, and there are many different points of view. In addition, I should have been glad to discuss the matter with the trade unions concerned, if they had been ready to do so before the preparation of the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. The Minister has introduced a new factor in that reply which was entirely unrelated to the original Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes; he is leaving on the record of the House a statement that should be challenged at the earliest possible moment. May not we ask the Minister what reply the trade unions gave him?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Almost the first thing I did when I became Minister was to ask the unions if they would have consultations with me, before the Bill was completed, on what form it ought to take. Acting on what advice or thoughts I do not know, they replied that they would prefer to wait until the Bill was published.

Mr. Popplewell: In view of that important statement, will the Minister publish the documents in the Library so that

we can all see what has actually taken place?

Mr. Speaker: We are a long way from the original Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Strutton Ground, Westminster

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce one-way working in Strutton Ground, Westminster, in view of the narrowness of this street and the market stalls erected in the roadway.

Mr. Braithwaite: No, Sir. This is a short street and the vehicular traffic is light and purely local.

Mr. Russell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is not only a question of the volume of traffic but its speed and convenience, and would he have a look at the matter again?

Mr. Braithwaite: It has already been looked at very thoroughly. The vehicular traffic is light. It is the pedestrian traffic which is heavy.

Traffic Lights, Oxford Street, London

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will have the traffic lights in Oxford Street regulated in such a way that they do not cause columns of traffic to be stopped across intersecting streets resulting in confusion and delay.

Mr. Braithwaite: These faults arise from the old type of equipment at present working in Oxford Street. The highway authority is preparing a scheme of replacement, which my right hon. Friend hopes to approve for completion next year. When new signals are installed, these faults should be rectified.

Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce one-way working in Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster, in view of the narrowness of this thoroughfare, especially the gateway itself.

Mr. Braithwaite: No, Sir. Such small inconvenience as may be experienced at present would not in my view justify this restriction.

Mr. Russell: Can my hon. Friend say why there is some reluctance to introduce one-way streets? What is the objection or difficulty?

Mr. Braithwaite: The objection is to Queen Anne's Gate as a one-way street. It would mean a long detour and might cause further difficulty in Storey's Gate.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is this street to be included in the Minister's unilateral parking proposals?

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY ESTABLISHMENTS, PORTON

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply what is the nature of the work being carried out by his Department at Porton; how many persons are employed there; and what has been the expenditure incurred there up to the latest available date.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The Ministry of Supply establishments at Porton are engaged on chemical and microbiological research. It would not be in the public interest to give the figures asked for in the Question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could not the right hon. Gentleman invite the Dean of Canterbury there to prove that there are no bacteriological warfare preparations going on? As the Americans give in their public accounts the amount of money which has been spent on such activities in America, are not Members of the House of Commons allowed to know how much of our money is being spent on bacteriological warfare preparations?

Mr. Sandys: I know that the hon. Member himself has become infected by a germ from Canterbury. We do not consider it desirable to publish figures which indicate the scale of effort which is being carried out in the various spheres of military research. I am surprised to see the hon. Member so full of admiration, for a change, for practices in the United States.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister unwilling to give the information because he knows that the scale of research would appal the British public?

Mr. Sandys: Not at all. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Member, because he is trying once again to blacken the name of this country by insinuations of this kind, of a Question he asked of the late Government in 1948, in reply to which the then Minister of Defence said:
The possibility that bacteria may be used in a future war is not being overlooked. Researches are being conducted so that we may be ready to meet any situation which may arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 2165.]
I have nothing to add to that answer except to say that we shall, of course, scrupulously carry out our obligations under the Geneva Protocol of 1925.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that Marshal Voroshilov said in 1939 that the Soviet Union were fully equipped to carry out bacteriological warfare if it was used against them? Have we not proposed at the Disarmament Commission that all preparation for bacteriological warfare shall be abolished by everybody?

Mr. Sandys: I have not Marshal Voroshilov's words in my mind, but no doubt the right hon. Member is correct.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (PRE-1924 CASES)

Mr. T. Brown: asked the Minister of National Insurance the number of applications received by the Workmen's Compensation Board, Supplementation pre-1924 cases, from 8th July, 1951, to 8th July, 1952, setting out the number of total incapacity cases, the number of partial incapacity cases, the number of claims disallowed, the total amount of compensation paid out to these cases, respectively, during the 12 months in question; the number of allowances which were terminated during the period in question because of death; and the number of claims undecided at 8th July, 1952.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I propose to circulate the latest available figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Some further information should shortly be available and I will let the hon. Member have it as soon as I can.

Mr. Brown: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT contain


those for the full 12 months' operation of this Act? It is essential that we should know the figures and how this Act has worked in relation to injured workmen.

Mr. Peake: The figures will cover the full number of persons affected by the Act, but I have not yet available the figures of the finance relating to them.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to amplify the policy on workmen's compensation enunciated by his Parliamentary Secretary on 2nd May, when he made the following declaration:
Our policy is to examine the whole position of workmen's compensation in consultation with the T.U.C. and see whether any just and equitable solution of it can be obtained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1952; Vol. 499, C. 1893.]
Is the Minister now in a position to carry out that promise?

Mr. Peake: That does not arise as a supplementary question about the pre-1924 cases. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question next week I will certainly give him an answer.

Following are the figures:


WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) SCHEME, 1951


Period from 11th July, 1951, to 5th July, 1952



Total incapacity
Partial incapacity
Total


Applications received
693
2,623
3,320


Claims disallowed
—
—
362


Deaths of recipients
—
—
127

The number of cases awaiting decision on 5th July, 1952, was 168.

The latest readily available figure for the amount of compensation is for the last week of December when approximately £300 was paid for persons totally incapacitated was £2,200 for persons partially incapacitated.

MESSRS. BRIGGS' WORKS, DAGENHAM (STRIKE)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour the present position in regard to the strike at Messrs Briggs' Works; and what steps are being taken to terminate it.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): The strike continues but a

number of men have returned to work. At Croydon approximately half the workers returned this morning. The strike is unofficial and the unions concerned are continuing their efforts to secure a resumption of normal working. I understand that officials of the unions are meeting representatives of the firm today.

U.S. SERVICE MEN'S FAMILIES (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what special steps are being taken to provide accommodation for the families of United States Service men now arriving in this country in large numbers as a result of the establishment of United States Air Force bases in Essex, East Anglia, and elsewhere; to what extent local authorities are assisting in the provision of such accommodation; and to what extent these authorities will be furnished with extra manpower and materials to enable them to provide it without prejudice to their ordinary housing programmes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): My right hon. Friend understands that what is required is accommodation in existing houses, boarding-houses or hotels and he has no doubt that the local authorities will provide all possible information and assistance. So far as he is aware, no question of the building of additional houses for the purpose has arisen.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware that American Service men will welcome this change of heart on the part of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), and hope that his solicitude for their well-being will be maintained.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman examine some of the cases of gross over-charging which have taken place in respect of some of these American Service men and their families in the accommodation which the hon. Gentleman now says is limited to them, especially as no new accommodation is to be provided?

Mr. Marples: That is another question. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, there are rent tribunals.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the inaccurate and spiteful personal imputation in the supplementary question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), may I ask the Minister if he will accept my assurance that I personally, as Member for a division in which a large American air base has been established, have been doing everything I can, in co-operation with the local authorities, to make sure that these difficult problems of accommodation are solved and to mitigate the ill-will that can be caused when these difficulties arise?

Mr. Marples: The assurance of the hon. Gentleman regarding his pro-American feeling is very welcome.

LICENSED PREMISES, NEW TOWNS

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the sum determined as compensation for acquisition by his Department under Part 1 of the Licensing Act, 1949, for existing licensed premises in each of the New Towns; the date when this sum was determined; and the method by which it was determined.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): No such sum has been determined. The previous Government included in the Estimates for 1951–52 a sum of £1 million which, I understand, was a rough estimate of the cost of acquiring about 100 existing licensed premises in four of the English new towns. No steps, however, were taken towards determining the actual cost of acquiring any of them.

Mr. Bing: As the Session is now to be terminated before the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill will be completed, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he will take immediate steps to see that these sums are determined so that we can discuss the matter on the appropriate Supplementary Estimate?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not accept the implication in the hon. and learned Member's question, the answer to which is in the negative.

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in respect

of each new town in England and Wales, the number of premises licensed solely for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off those premises.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will circulate a table giving this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


EXISTING OFF-LICENSED PREMISES IN NEW TOWNS IN ENGLAND AND WALES


New Towns and Number of off-licensed premises


Basildon
5


Bracknell
4


Crawley
4


Corby
4


Cwmbran
7


Harlow
3


Hemel Hempstead
16


Newton Aycliffe
—


Peterlee
—


Stevenage
3


Welwyn Garden City
—


Hatfield
2


Total
48

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HALE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether any person is registered in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, as the owner of "The Fortune of War" public house, Laindon, "The Railway Hotel," Laindon, "The Railway Hotel," Pitsea, "The Jolly Cricketers," Nevendon and "The Barge Inn," "The Bull Hotel" and "The Five Bells," Vange; and who are the registered owners of these public houses;
(2) whether any person is registered in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, as the owner of "The Black Bull" public house and of "The Royal George" public house, Old Shotton, Peterlee; and who are the registered owners of these public houses.

Mr. Braine: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Question No. 54 relates to a number of excellent public houses in my constituency, though the hon. Gentleman who proposed to ask the Question did not inform me of his intention or that be would not be present today. As this


matter affects the interests of my constituents, is there any way in which the Question can be answered?

Mr. Speaker: None at all, now.

Mr. Shinwell: As Question No. 55 refers to public houses in my division, may I say, Sir, that I am delighted that other hon. Members take an interest in my constituency?

Mr. Bing: Further to that point of order. May I say, Sir, to make the matter clear, that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) put down a Question, which followed on one of mine, in reply to which the Home Secretary said that he had no idea who owned any public houses anywhere?

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of each new town in Scotland, the number of premises for which a certificate has been granted under Part VII of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, distinguishing in each case those certificates which relate to the sale solely of excisable liquor for consumption off the premises.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): Five in East Kilbride and one in Glenrothes. One of the certificates in East Kilbride is a grocer's certificate (which authorises sale for off-consumption only).

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman assure us that none of these licences will be given in my constituency?

Mr. Bing: Could the Under-Secretary say what will be the cost of acquiring these licences?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. and learned Gentleman likes to put a question down, I will try to answer it.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that it is not necessary to acquire these licences, because they come to an end at the end of each year if not renewed?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman should inform his hon. and learned Friend on these matters.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the hon. Gentleman know who are the owners of these premises, or in whose names these licensed premises are registered?

Mr. Stewart: I shall be glad to answer that question also if it is put on the Order Paper.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1952–53

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £160, be granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with the Closing of Museums and Art Galleries for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:

Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimate, 1952–53



£


Class I, Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments
10


Class I, Vote 17, Public Record Office
10


Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education
10


Class IV, Vote 2, British Museum
10


Class IV, Vote 3, British Museum (Natural History)
10


Class IV, Vote 4, Imperial War Museum
10


Class IV, Vote 5, London Museum
10


Class IV, Vote 6, National Gallery
10


Class IV, Vote 7, National Maritime Museum
10


Class IV, Vote 8, National Portrait Gallery
10


Class IV, Vote 9, Wallace Collection
10


Class IV, Vote 10, Grants for Science and the Arts
10


Class IV, Vote 14, Public Education, Scotland
10


Class IV, Vote 15, National Galleries, Scotland
10


Class IV, Vote 16, National Library, Scotland
10


Class VI, Vote 18, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
10


Total
£160

Orders of the Day — UMSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (CLOSING)

3.22 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: The story I have to tell this afternoon is a very dismal story, and, like all dismal stories, it has a moral. The moral is, "Do not be taken in by your own parrot cries."
The Government, at the time of the General Election, told us that if they were returned they would make great economies in Government expenditure by cutting out waste. When they arrived in


power, they found that there was no waste to cut out, and so they could not make any great cut in Government expenditure without affecting our essential services. They would not admit that they had made a mistake, but they plunged ahead, and they have now, over this matter of museums and art galleries, got themselves into a very nasty jam.
The museums and art galleries were told to make an arbitrary cut of their staffs as at 1st October, 1951. There was no prior consultation before they were told to make these arbitrary cuts, and most of them received the information in the form of a cyclostyled letter in which the figure of the cut was filled in in type. One museum, that of the Public Record Office, has had to close down completely, and other museums and art galleries have had to close part of their premises or open and close parts of them on alternate days, and impose other restrictions on the public.
Nothing like this has ever happened before in our history. Never before have so many museums and art galleries been compelled by any Government to impose restrictions on the public. And all this in order to save 84 people on the staff and £30,000 a year. When these announcements were made, there were, naturally, tremendous protests from those interested in the presevation of our culture. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury sought to justify these cuts in the House on 25th June by a very peculiar method of argument. He said that all museums and art galleries, taken together, had 59 more on their staffs today than they had before the war, and he went on to say that they had 277,000 square feet less of galleries to look after, because of losses due to enemy action, and that therefore there was no need whatever for them to have closed down any part of their premises.
The Financial Secretary looks at our heritage, our traditions and culture as a matter of arithmetic, and no doubt this Government would try to assess the artistic value of the Elgin Marbles by weight. In that case, there would be very little hope—if there are to be further cuts—for Magna Carta, because, although it is a very important document, it does not weigh very much.
According to his arithmetic, there was not the slightest need for any closing of

museums or art galleries or for any restrictions to be imposed on the public. In fact—and this is a very serious departure—the Financial Secretary has charged the distinguished keepers and directors of our museums and art galleries with inefficiency. He has said that it is not his fault that there has been any closing, but that it is the fault of the people responsible for running the museums and art galleries. The Financial Secretary's arithmetic is "phoney." He has deliberately distorted the figures and given them a wrong meaning in order to cover up his own Government's stupidity.
Let us begin with the British Museum. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is a trustee of the museum, will later on be dealing with the details of this situation, and there is only one aspect of the British Museum on which I want to touch. On 25th June, the Financial Secretary said that there are 18 more on the staff of the museum today than there were before the war. Therefore, he goes on, why the cuts, why the restrictions?
The British Museum is not a dead mausoleum; it is expanding tremendously. All the time there are new discoveries in the archeological field. Just before the war, the British Museum acquired the Sutton Hoo collection. They had to apportion part of their staff to the care and maintenance of the collection, to research into it, and, later on, to exhibit it. Since the war, the Museum has acquired the Mildenhall treasure, and again, that needed more staff. The National Library of the Museum has gone on expanding steadily, and, in fact, today it should have 60 more members of the staff in order to run it efficiently, because today readers in the British Museum Library have to wait two hours for a book, and that is not providing effective and efficient service for the public.
For the first time in 200 years, the galleries of the British Museum have had to be closed on alternate days. Since it was opened in 1753, we have had to wait for the arrival of a Tory Government for its facilities to be restricted to the public because the staff has now been cut by 22. The British Museum had no alternative, unless they were to cut down work on research—and perhaps the Government would like them to do that—or unless they were inadequately to care for


the exhibits, or unless they were to refuse to take on or deal with any more discoveries. I hope the Government will not tell us that, if more discoveries are made in the archaeological field, the British Museum will not be allowed to accept them, because the purpose of the Museum is to expand and develop and not constrict itself.
Passing to the National Maritime Museum, the Financial Secretary said that it had eight more non-industrials on its staff than before the war. This museum was opened for the first time in 1937, and in 1938 it had no exhibits earlier than Queen Anne. Since 1939—and I think the Financial Secretary likes this kind of figure—the east wing has been open, which has meant that the floor space has gone up by 74 per cent. since before the war, and, in addition, exhibits of pre-Napoleonic times have been added. Visitors to the National Maritime Museum have gone up by 90 per cent.
Incidentally, visitors to all museums have roughly doubled in numbers since before the war, which is an important indication of the public interest shown in these museums and art galleries, and an indication that, in some respects they need more staff in order to supervise this greatly increased attendance.
The National Maritime Museum has had an increase in the staff which looks after and guards exhibits of only 50 per cent., while the increase in the floor space has been one of 74 per cent., and whilst the cleaners have come down in number by 10 per cent. Today the Queen's House of the National Maritime Museum, built by Inigo Jones and considered by many to be one of the finest examples of his work, has to be closed on alternate days with the east wing.
This closing of galleries, wings and houses on alternate days is not a trivial matter as the Financial Secretary tried to make out. It means that if one is a visitor from abroad and has only one day to spare to go to Greenwich, one can only see half the museum. Many people come from thousands of miles to see the Queen's House at Greenwich, and if they go on the wrong day they do not see it, but how are they to know before they get there whether it is the right or the wrong day? They cannot know. The Government of this country have reached

such a pass that, in order to redeem their shallow election pledges, they have closed down the Queen's House at Greenwich.
I now turn to the Natural History Museum which, as the Financial Secretary told us, has 35 more people on its staff than before the war. The hon. Gentleman gave this figure in order to show that the museum could have no ground for complaint when these further cuts were imposed upon them. But that museum has enormously developed its work in research since before the war.
It is a scientific research institution of a very high grade indeed. Only the other day it discovered an entirely new mineral. At the moment it is engaged on a very big research project which may revolutionise fishery throughout the whole of Africa. All these things require staff. At the same time, its exhibits have vastly increased in number and so has the attendance at the museum. It has now had to close the Mammals Gallery which was opened last year for the Festival. It would not have had to close that gallery if it could have got the staff for it.
These three museums with which I have so far dealt are the three on which the Financial Secretary based his claim that there was more staff available to them than before the war. Why, therefore, he asked, were they having to close down any part of their facilities? The admitted increase in staff in those three museums as against before the war is 61, and the Financial Secretary claimed that there was an increase of 59 in staff for all the museums and art galleries. I think I have effectively disposed of the argument that, even with the same amount of staff or a lesser amount of staff, these three museums could perform their functions adequately.
Let us now come to the Public Records Office. The Financial Secretary said with some unction that there were 154 employed there after the cuts as against only 127 before the war. Then he added:
Those figures speak for themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2411.]
In other words, the Keeper and Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records Office are being inefficient in closing down their museum which was used by some 12,000 visitors a year. But the Public Records Office has obligations laid upon it by


Act of Parliament. One of the things it has to do is to conserve and make available for study all the records of the central Government, and these are greatly increasing all the time.
At Chancery Lane alone there are 35 miles of shelving and 140 strong-rooms full of documents, and every day, in order that these documents may be preserved and properly ventilated, 140 doors have to be opened and shut and 800 ancient and not very easily managed windows also have to be opened and closed. But, in addition to this central part of the Public Records Office, there has been added since the war a new supplementary repository at Ashridge with 10 miles of shelving which, of course, did not have to be dealt with by the staff before the war because it did not exist. That repository includes everything that used to be at Canterbury before the war and a great deal more besides.
There is a further addition in the way of an intermediate repository now in preparation to which are now being consigned all the documents of the various Departments of State which are not in frequent use, but which are put into this repository and supervised by the Public Records Office so that they may be sorted against the time when they may finally be deposited in the Public Records Office itself. Again, that intermediate repository means that the Public Records Office needs more staff today because that repository did not exist before the war.
But that is not all that the Public Records Office has to do. Since the war it has set up a photographic section which, among other things, provides microfilms for students all over the world. At the moment it has a staff of 12 which did not exist before the war, and that staff is increasing. The Library of Congress and the National Archives of Canada are among their biggest customers. They pay dollars for these films. The section pays for itself and is not a charge on the Treasury, but the staff has to be listed on the Estimates and they are additional to the numbers before the war because, of course, the section did not exist at that time.
Here we have a situation in which the additional staff are far more than absorbed in doing additional work put upon the Public Records Office since the war.

Is the Financial Secretary suggesting that the supplementary repository at Ashridge should be closed down? If so, he would have to introduce an Act of Parliament because Parliament has told the Records Office to maintain these documents, and the same applies to the intermediate repository. The only way they could keep the museum open would be by an Act of Parliament which relieved them of their obligations to keep these documents.
Even on the figures of the reduction which has taken place, the Financial Secretary misled the House. He said that their staff was reduced by only five. They have been reduced by 12. Last year's Estimate showed a figure of 166 for the Public Records Office and 154 from 166 is 12, not five, as the Financial Secretary, who ought to be better at figures than that, gave us to understand.
Of course, the Records Division have had to restrict their services to the public. They have had to close one of the three rooms open to students, and some would think more important than closing the museum to the public or closing a room used by students is the stopping of the work of indexing the 30 million documents in the Public Records Office. That work, as the Committee will understand, is extremely important because it is the only way in which documents can be catalogued, and it saves a vast amount of time and money for students and others attempting to do research.
I think it is one of the most shameful things for a Minister or a Government to blame civil servants for their own inefficiency and stupidity. To my knowledge it has never been done before in the House. This is an action taken by the Government, but the Financial Secretary comes to the House and tells us that his civil servants—and they are civil servants at the Public Records Office and unable to speak for themselves—have been inefficient and need not have closed down this museum. The figures do not speak for themselves. The figures which the Financial Secretary tried to give us presented an entirely different picture from the true one. I think it is dishonest and disgraceful to blame civil servants for actions forced upon them by Ministers themselves.
Let us now have a look at the Victoria and Albert Museum. The staff of the


hard core of that museum works at its three permanent residences or buildings. That staff has been cut by 20 as against before the war. There has been no increase in staff there. This does not appear in the Estimates because the figures there appear to have gone up. The reason is that since the war three buildings have been added to the Victoria and Albert Museum for which they have become responsible, which makes, of course, an addition to the total staff. The buildings are Ham House, Apsley House and Osterley Park, for which the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education is responsible.

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): I am responsible for all of them.

Mr. Wyatt: I hope the right hon. Lady is not proud of what she has been doing.
Because of this cut, Osterley Park—held by many to be the finest example of the work of the Adam brothers and which was bought by the National Trust and acquired by them after the war, together with all its contents bought for the marriage of Lord Jersey in 1771—which was due to be opened to the public this summer, will not now be opened. This is a public property bought for the public, to be shown to the public. It will not now be open because of this foolish cut. It means that Londoners, visitors from outside London, and foreign visitors cannot go to the superb grounds of Osterley Park and also see the house itself, as they were intended to do this summer.
The Victoria and Albert Museum have managed better with their cut, because when a cut of 17 in their staff was imposed they withdrew a number of wardens and custodians at Ham House and took them to the museum in South Kensington so that they could keep all the rooms and galleries open there. This means that now only conducted parties can go to Ham House. If one goes by oneself and one does not wait until the correct hour for a conducted party, one cannot see the house.
Again, at the Victoria and Albert Museum the wardens have become rather thin on the ground. They are stretched very far indeed, beyond what is reasonable for safe custody of the exhibits there. Only recently the Duke of Wellington's

celebrated dagger was stolen. I do not think that it would have been stolen if there had been an adequate staff there.
Now I turn to the Wallace Collection. This had already suffered a cut of two earlier on. It has now had a further two removed from the staff by this arbitrary cyclostyled letter from the Treasury. Four of the rooms have to be closed and opened on alternate days. Two of those rooms contain the famous collection of armour, one of the principal parts of the whole Wallace Collection. Today the Wallace Collection have seven less on their effective staff than they had in 1939. In 1939 there were 64 on the staff, seven of whom were cleaners and floor-polishers, whose work is now being done by outside contractors. Today they are allowed only 50, so they have been actually cut down by seven from the pre-war effective strength; and 57 is the minimum which the trustees responsible think they must have to carry out their functions and responsibilities. Without that number they do not think they can protect and exhibit the collection adequately.
The staff are in a dilemma and have asked the Treasury for helpful suggestions. That is completely useless under the present administration. The only way they can think of making economies by cutting the staff is to dispense with a man who takes in the umbrellas and walking-sticks. But all galleries and museums have to take away umbrellas and walking-sticks to prevent damage being done to the exhibits by inflamed colonels who may not like the type of art displayed.
The Tate Gallery is perhaps one of the worst examples of all under the present régime. According to the Financial Secretary there has been a cut of 2½ men on the staff. I am not quite clear whether the half is the bottom half or the upper half. But according to the Tate Gallery the cut is 3½, because they were one below normal establishment on 1st October, 1951, when the Financial Secretary's axe fell and cut this unfortunate man in half.
This means that the exhibition of English water colour paintings from the 17th Century onwards has had to be closed entirely because it cannot be properly supervised. This collection is unique in the world. It is the only collection of English water colours since the


17th Century which has been always open and accessible to the public. With it were some modern foreign water colour paintings, deliberately juxtaposed for comparative purposes, and also some oil paintings. Now this exhibition has gone altogether. Yet water colour is one of the fields of painting in which the English are supposed to excel. The public will not be able to see these paintings any more.
Actually there are fewer wardens and attendants at the Tate Gallery now than there were before the war. There were then 41 and today there are only 38. One explanation is that four men who normally would have been wardens and attendants have had to be assigned whole time to unpacking, assembling and repacking all the special exhibitions which are held at the gallery. Since the war a feature of our cultural life, no doubt completely unknown to the present Government, has been the four or five special exhibitions held every year at the Tate Gallery. They all require great care and attention in unpacking, assembling and hanging. The works of Cezanne, Rouault—of whom no doubt the Financial Secretary has never heard—Henry Moore, Van Gogh, and the famous Austrian Exhibition have been among them, and today the 20th Century Masterpieces Exhibition opens.
It is rather interesting to know that in connection with this last exhibition the Arts Council, who have brought the exhibition over from Paris, said to the Tate Gallery, "Since we do not think you have enough wardens and attendants to safeguard an exhibition adequately in your premises any more, we have had to employ four additional wardens not on the staff of the Tate Gallery, because we do not think you can properly supervise this exhibition, which is very valuable, without additional help from outside." This is the state to which the Government have reduced the celebrated Tate Gallery.
What has happened in the Tate Gallery shows the enormous rise in popularity of museums and galleries since before the war. The annual attendance for all of them have roughly doubled. For the last week in May and the first week in June, 1939, the attendance at the Tate Gallery was 10,455. In exactly the same two weeks in 1950 the attendance was 22,662, which shows that not less staff

but more are required. Yet despite all the things which I have explained, the Financial Secretary says that it is the inefficiency of the authorities of the Tate Gallery which has compelled them to close down the water-colour exhibition.
The other day the Financial Secretary said that at one or two of the galleries no restrictions have been imposed. He carefully selected the galleries where only one or two of the staff have been dismissed and, incidentally, where there have been no great acquisitions since the war or additional responsibilities placed upon the authorities. They are the Imperial War Museum, the National Gallery and the London Museum. The size of exhibitions and the general conditions are entirely different at different galleries. One cannot quote one museum and say that although the staff there has been cut by two, they have not closed any galleries, and that therefore the Tate Gallery should not have closed the water-colour exhibition. Conditions are entirely different at different galleries.
Our complaint is summed up in an admirable leading article in "The Times" today, which is heartily condemnatory of the action of the Government in these matters. It states:
Any attempt to treat them"—
that is, museums and galleries—
with the same kind of rule-of-thumb financial restriction as might be applied, say, to some Ministry of mushroom growth could do utterly irreparable damage merely to make some quite inconsiderable saving.
That is exactly what has been done by this stupid and unthinking action. This is an example in microcosm of the actions of the Government in the larger field of our affairs. It is characterised by folly, ignorance, and irresponsibility. To apply the cut in the first place without consultation with the authorities of the museums was folly. To apply it without understanding the implications or having the vaguest notion of the nature of the inside of a museum was ignorance. To blame the consequence of that action on civil servants and the distinguished directors and keepers of those museums and art galleries is irresponsibility. These persons, who are highly distinguished and eminent in their own field, and who have spent a lifetime in the public service, have been gratuitously insulted at the end of it by the Financial Secretary, who tells them that they do not know how


to do their job. I think they deserve an apology.
The Treasury have made no helpful suggestions in this matter whatever. There was one ludicrous proposal by the Financial Secretary, who said, "Oh, well, why do not they take the exhibits from one room which has been closed and put them in another?" He really ought to go and visit a museum one day and just see why they do not wheel a Saxon burial ship in and out of the Egyptian Room at the British Museum every morning. There are reasons for this. There are reasons of space and of staff which has already been cut. Also it is not very desirable to keep wheeling things like burial ships up and down the corridors of the British Museum.
These cuts have already affected scholarship. They have affected scholarship at the Public Record Office by preventing the indexing of all these documents from being continued. They have curbed scholarship at the Victoria and Albert Museum, where the highly specialised technical staff who ought to he engaged full-time on research are now doing supervisory duties in the galleries and they have done the same at the other museums. The public are severely affected in many instances by being kept away from these things which are our heritage.
The country is affected not only by the fact that its own citizens are prevented from seeing these objects, but we are also losing foreign currency by the obvious diminution of attraction which this country will have for foreign visitors when they learn that the museum which they wished to go to see on a particular day may or may not be open, or half of it may be open and they do not know which half, or they may see only a part of the collection which they have come to see and they cannot spare any more time to see the other part.
The whole of this action has taken place because the Government—in fact, the Ministers responsible at the Treasury—decided that, in order to redeem one of their election pledges, they must try to save some Government expenditure. They could not find any waste in the museums and galleries; they never consulted them to find out if there was any. So they issued this arbitrary cut, which varied

from museum to art gallery, without any relation to the conditions in each of these museums and art galleries, and they ordered them to cut down by 1st June of this year.
It is only blind stupidity and pride which is preventing the Government from admitting their mistake today and withdrawing these restrictions which are saving only £30,000 a year. I am certain that if there were a free vote on this matter, the Government would be defeated by an overwhelming majority.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Hollis: I had hardly expected to be called quite so early in this debate, since my contribution was intended to be a matter of some detailed questions rather than the general survey which might have been expected from an hon. Member speaking first from these benches.
I am glad the Opposition have taken the opportunity to raise this important subject this afternoon, and I am glad that we are having the opportunity to ventilate our views upon it. Naturally enough, I cannot associate myself with every one of the epithets or general animadversions that have just fallen from the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), but I am anxious that we shall debate this subject not in order that either one party or the other should obtain any party advantage, but in order that we may find a solution to the problem, a problem which concerns me very much.
I entirely agree with those—I think the Financial Secretary is certainly among them—who think that it is very deplorable that this present situation has arisen. I do not think I need elaborate that point, about which I am sure there is no dispute. Of course, we can all pile up extremely cogent and important reasons why it is a very sad and disastrous state of affairs that these facilities have been restricted, and I do not need to labour the point. The great danger is that this matter should be argued out upon two parallel lines which will never meet and which will, therefore, never bring us to a solution. On the one hand, while dissenting from the epithets and general animadversions of the hon. Member for Aston, I would associate myself with his constructive and cogent argument.
It is very sad that these restrictions have been imposed, and he is right—I do


not think the Financial Secretary would deny it—in saying that this problem cannot be solved merely by a mathematical computation of the number of employees in the museums and art galleries. We all well understand that, compared with the figure in 1939, the museums have taken on all sorts of new obligations and, therefore, we cannot deduce the fact that there is no justification for this closure by simply taking the number of employees. I do not imagine that my hon. Friend ever intended that we should do that.
Nevertheless, it is a pertinent fact that we should understand, first, that there are more employees in these museums than there were in 1939, and secondly, that it is by no means all of the museums which have found it necessary to close down on certain days or to close certain departments in order to meet this problem. As the hon. Member admitted, the National Gallery, the London Museum and the Imperial War Museum have been able to take their cuts without closing down. It is not accurate to say of the Imperial War Museum at least, that it has taken on no new commitments since the war, because it has had an addition of some 1,600 square feet of gallery space to look after.
However, what we want to know is how to get a solution. On the one hand, there is the argument of the hon. Member for Aston, and on the other hand there is the Government's argument, the strength of which nobody can deny, which is this: unfortunately, like it or not, there is today a financial crisis, and Government economies have to be carried through. It is easy in this respect and in a thousand other respects to argue that such and such an activity is desirable and, therefore, it is a Philistine thing to economise on it, but we are in a position where we cannot get away with these generalised sort of arguments.
We have these two sets of cases, both of which in themselves are valid. It is desirable, if we can find a way of doing it, to keep the museums open and, on the other hand, these are times when the Government simply cannot afford to be indifferent to economies. Of course, it can be said that £32,000 is the sole extent of these economies, and that is a small economy, but all economies are small if we break them down into small enough figures.
Let us see what is the practical hope of a solution. With that in mind, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary two questions and to get very clear the answers to them both. First, I am far from certain what is exactly the legal right of the museums to close down in these circumstances. After all, whether they are receiving more public money or less public money, they are receiving public money, and they are doing so on certain conditions, one of which is that of making themselves available to the public. What has happened, I understand, is that the Government have told them that they must have these cuts in their personnel and it has been left entirely to them to decide in what way they shall perform or shall not perform their functions when these cuts have been imposed upon them. I am very far from clear whether the Government have the legal right to divest themselves of their responsibility to that extent, or whether the museums have the legal right to close in the way they have done, without consultation.
When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) raised this matter the other day, he made an extremely important and practical suggestion which I had hoped might lead to a way out of our difficulty. We are all agreed that, on the one hand, it is a terrible thing that these museums should be closed, and, on the other hand, there is a financial crisis. It is perfectly true that the Government have chosen to demand a reduction of staff; but this is not like a war-time crisis, where the essential saving required is that of manpower.
What is required here is not a saving of staff for itself but a saving of public expenditure. Therefore, it would seem worth while to explore, in greater detail than has been done up till now, the question whether the museums could not keep larger staffs and at the same time save Government expenditure by being allowed to charge fees, in the way that the galleries on the Continent, such as the Louvre, are permitted to do. The Louvre charges fees. The Zoo charges fees. If it is good enough for the Louvre and good enough for the Zoo, why is it not good enough for the National Gallery?

Dr. Barnett Stross: Has the hon. Member considered the figures which have already been given, namely, that some 22,000 people per month are going to the Tate Gallery, and that the reduction is a question of 2½ per cent. of the personel? This would work out at not even 1d. par attendance.

Mr. Hollis: Is the hon. Member on my side or against me?

Dr. Stross: I am asking whether he has considered how small the charge per person would be in order to get the global sum required?

Mr. Hollis: The smaller the charge, the stronger the argument. The hon. Member, I am delighted to find, is on my side. My hon. Friend raised that point and the Financial Secretary replied to it in the debate on 25th June. He said that there were legal difficulties and, on the question of imposing charges, he added:
Whether that is desirable or not, it would involve legislation in the case of some of the major institutions, notably the British Museum. But this is a matter which would be open to certain objections. It would be wrong to seek to apportion staff cuts among museums on the basis that some could make charges and some could not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2411.]
I should like to make two points on that. First, if it be true that it is possible to make charges in some museums but not in others, I do not think that is a very good reason for not making charges where we can. We might as well save money where we can, even if it could not be done everywhere. Secondly, if legislation were required, I do not think that it would be very difficult or that it would meet with opposition, even in such times as these.

Mr. Ede: rose—

Mr. Hollis: The right hon. Gentleman would oppose it, would he?

Mr. Ede: I should be one, and there would be a large number of others who would, and they would not all be on one side of the House.

Mr. Hollis: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion it is still more important that the Financial Secretary should tell us, in a great deal more detail than we have had, in respect of which museums legislation would be required

and where it would not, because the most important of all these closures is the closure of the Public Record Office. If one looks up the Public Record Act, which was passed in the second year of the Reign of Queen Victoria, one finds, in Section 9, that the Public Record Office is set up
…for the Admission of such Persons as ought to be admitted to the Use of the Records, Calendars, Catalogues, and Indexes in his Custody, and to suspend, alter, or rescind such Rules, or any of them, and to fix the Amount of Fees (if any) which he shall think proper to be paid for the Use thereof…and from Time to Time to vary the same as he shall think fit.
So, as far as the Public Record Office is concerned—and that is really the most important establishment affected—it seems quite certain that there is no legal objection to the charging of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said would be only an extremely small fee.
Therefore, when my hon. Friend replies, I think that he should tell the Committee, in a great deal more detail than we have had at present, first, what is the legal position as to those places which can charge fees without legislation and those which cannot. Secondly, I ask him to consult with his friends in the Government and to think very carefully whether it is not possible to bridge this " unbridgeable gulf " by making the money available through these small charges, until such time as the Government are in a position to increase the amount once more.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I think that all Members of the Committee should be grateful to the Opposition for having called attention to this matter and for the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) in fact, he gave details in such a way that it is unnecessary for us to repeat some of them. I must confess, however, that I think it is the duty of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the Committee, when a matter of this kind is being discussed, to try to make some headway against the pressure which is being brought to bear upon various Departments by the Treasury without any regard for any principle of priority.
It may be that we have to make economies in this or that direction, but the trouble is—as I have said on a number of


occasions—that in the heirarchy of the Government machine the Treasury is now practically supreme. That may suit some people, but it has a most appalling consequence on public administration when the Treasury write off a number of figures from a balance sheet without any appraisement of the qualitative results of what they have done.
That is why I think hon. Members must support the protest which is being made, if only to get some kind of sense of proportion into the Treasury. I have suffered from it, and I dare say that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Government Front Bench at the present time will be extremely grateful for a little pressure from the House to resist the importunities of people in the Treasury who are addicts to arithmetic and who, quite frequently, have no regard for the public consequences of what they do.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) put his finger on an important point. Who is going to protect the public in this matter? The Treasury want money, or they want to reduce expenditure. They want to cut down the number on the public staffs, so they say, "Less money here." Then the issue is passed to the custodians of the museums and galleries, who have another vested interest and who say, "We will stop the public coming in." Who is to protect the public between these two bodies? If every time the Treasury come along and ask for money the only way in which they can provide more economical services is by shutting out the public, it is obvious that before very long there will be no protection for the public. I should have thought that puri passu with the demand for a reduction of the staffs there should have been an investigation into the administration of museums and galleries. I believe they would come out on top against the Treasury.
If we are going to demand a reduction in expenditure, it ought not to be done by reducing services to the public without first finding out whether it would be possible to give the same services with a smaller expenditure. Mat is one count that we ought to make against the frivolous behaviour of the Treasury. They have merely passed the responsibility on to another body of persons, who then reduce facilities to the public. I think that this is extremely unwise.
I very often take half an hour or an hour off to go round the art galleries. I was at the Wallace Collection the other day, and on one occasion at the Victoria and Albert Museum—where in the basement there is a very fine exhibition of mediaeval furniture—I saw a youngster of 10 or 11 years of age about to scratch a piece of Spanish mahogany. There was no attendant there at all. That is not good enough. It is quite wrong that we should have these priceless exhibits, either given to us or bought by the nation, and should then be so improvident as not to provide sufficient warders or attendants to see that they are properly preserved.
I should have thought that one thing that ought to have given everybody a sense of pride in the generation now growing up in Great Britain was to see the enormous queues waiting to go and see the French Exhibition. Very many of the people are of the ages from 17 to 21 and 22. Nothing has ever been seen like it in Great Britain before.
An enormous amount of interest is now being taken in art products of all kinds, and as the figures which my hon. Friend has given reveal, this is an education of an enormously important character. No one can judge in terms of finance the awakening of the imagination in a youngster that might result from one afternoon in the National Art Gallery or similar places; and from that awakening, all kinds of beneficial consequences flow.
That is why it seems to me a particularly mean thing that hon. Members should suggest that there should be a charge. Quite obviously, it would he quite impossible for these youngsters to go along if every time they went they had to pay a charge. Everybody knows that there is nothing more tiring than walking around a gallery. I do not know how long some hon. Members can stand it, but half an hour is sufficient for me. It is extremely exhausting having to re-act to what one sees apart from the physical exertion of walking around, which is not much. Therefore, one has to make many visits in order to be able to get the proper advantage from the gallery.
It is no use, if a youngster is charged, expecting him or her to get the utmost benefit by staying as long as possible in the gallery, because after half an hour he gets no more from the gallery. What we want to do, therefore, is to encourage


the greatest possible number of visits. If a charge is to be made every time—and, of course, the youngsters cannot do it—then what we have got are idle treasures.
There is nothing more senseless than to pile up the treasures of civilisation in such a way and to keep them in such a way that they cannot be seen. That is the worst kind of vandalism—it is almost as bad as destroying them. If they cannot be seen, they are dead as far as the public are concerned. Therefore, I hope that the suggestion of the charge will not be taken up.
There is another angle. It has seemed to me to be a quaint thing that we should have from Lord Jersey an act of benevolence and to know what has happened since. He gave Osterley Park to the National Trust—I think some of the contents were bought. When he had it in his possession, it was possible to see it now and again—I saw it myself on two occasions—but now that he has handed it over to the nation no one can see it. That is a curious situation that we have got into.
If any person who has treasures endowed to him by his rich forefathers, or happens to have treasures in his possession by any other means, thinks about giving them to the State, he ought first of all to have a contract that if he does give them to the State they should be at least as much seen as when he had them. It really is an extraordinary state to which we have brought ourselves.
There is a further angle in the matter of priorities. I can tell hon. Members on the other side how to save this money immediately and to add to the efficiency of Government. I believe that immediately after Lord Cherwell was appointed to some very ambiguous duty—no one has defined it; probably it is quite mischievous—we had a Supplementary Estimate—I am speaking from memory—for his staff of £30,000, which is almost the exact figure in question. There we are—sack Lord Cherwell, and let the kiddies see the pictures.
I am not saying that we could not carry it further than that. A great advantage would be to sack Lord Woolton as well, and still more money would be saved. Nobody will suggest for a moment that in the order of public priorities it is more important to have Lord Cherwell

than that people should see a Renoir. I suggest seriously to the Government that this is not how the nation likes to have its affairs treated. The Government get no credit whatever out of this on any side of the House, and they are certainly getting no credit outside.
Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Aston quite properly pointed out that these pictures, looking at the matter not from a purely aesthetic but from a purely commercial point of view, are a very great asset to us. It is not only children coming from the provinces to London who will see these pictures, but people come from all over the world to see them. If one is in a foreign city there is no more tedious task than trying to find out when a museum is open and when it is closed, what part of it is open and what part is closed. It is astonishing how many art treasures in London are never seen even by Londoners because the City is so huge and there is always the difficulty of finding out about things. But if anyone who speaks in a foreign tongue has to find out those things—all these little obstacles piled up in the way make it much harder to get access to these treasures.
The other day, just after the announcement was made that these economies were to be effected, I was going round the Tate Gallery and I met a very distinguished American collector. I felt a sense of shame that we had to admit that some parts of the Tate Gallery had to be closed because the financial astringency in Great Britain was so serious that we had to shut out our own people from our own glories. That is too shabby and too silly, and I believe that the Government would give rise to universal approval if the Financial Secretary would get up and say that they were going to withdraw this silly piece of economy.

4.18 p.m.

Sir William Darling: All the best speeches this afternoon will be made, of course, in defence of the proposal that we should—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is it not right, Sir Charles, that there should be a Scottish Minister here, because three Scottish art galleries are affected? There are Scottish Members present, but no Scottish Minister.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Sir W. Darling: I shall manage to make my observations without the assistance of hon. or right hon. Members. The support that I am offering to the Government is not support that demands the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I was remarking that the best speeches will be made in support of the proposal for continuing the extended free opening of museums and public galleries. The debate today is particularly interesting. I have always had the greatest curiosity about the way in which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) spends his leisure. We now know that he has been in the Victoria and Albert Museum protecting a piece of mahogany from being scratched by a small boy—a very interesting piece of public service which I am sure his many admirers, including myself, will treasure. We have had also the picture of the right hon. Gentleman ruminating in the Tate Gallery, discussing the unhappy affairs of the British people with distinguished American friends. That is a pretty picture, but it is peculiar, in my judgment, to the right hon. Gentleman.
There are not tens of thousands of persons—the figures bear out what I am saying—who use these galleries. I suggest that the way to approach this matter is to consider to what extent a country in a bankrupt condition can afford an elaborate system of picture galleries and museums free to the people all the time. That really is the question which we have to answer.
I know that this is not a popular speech. I could touch the heights of eloquence in praise of the necessities of culture—perhaps, not the heights that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale touches or the heights that the hon. Member the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) reaches, but still I could touch the heights of eloquence. However, what I want to say is that this is indeed a bankrupt country, and that it is that fact which outshines and outstares these other considerations.
I have been connected with many businesses, some of which went bankrupt. Very popular was the member of the board of a company going bankrupt who said, "Let us take a liberal view of this.

Surely we need not cut down on all these things. Surely it is not necessary to be as cheeseparing as all this." That was a very popular thing to say when economy was necessary. It was always the directors who spoke like that who brought the business to the verge of bankruptcy.
It was left to one curmudgeon—the miserable fellow—to take a view of the business as a whole and to put before the board the business as a whole, so that the employees' salaries and wages could continue to be paid and the company could continue to act. It was up to one of those fellows to say, "It is all very well to talk about the canteen and the holiday fund and the benevolent fund and all those other things which are very proper and necessary in their place and serve a good purpose at certain times, but this business is on the rocks, and unless we deal with our difficulties and make economies in these things, which are, after all, excrescences and luxuries, the business will be entirely destroyed."
The one who said that was never very popular. He was the one who had to make the unpopular speech. However, it always happened that it was the one who said the unpopular things, and those others who shared his view, who brought the business back to prosperity again, so that the luxuries could be enjoyed again, so that the workpeople were fully employed and got their wages, and a dividend was paid to the shareholders.

Mr. Dryden Brook: Will the hon. Gentleman carry his argument to the logical conclusion and advocate selling all these treasures in order to meet this state of bankruptcy?

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I will carry my argument to its logical conclusion, but I demur saying that that is the logical conclusion, as he suggests. What we are contemplating at this moment is the temporary closing, or temporary restriction on opening, of certain public galleries. That is what we are contemplating.
If it were necessary that we should sell national treasures in order to meet the mismanagement and misfortunes of our country, I should not be afraid to do that. Other countries have had to do so, and many individuals have had to do so. The hon. Gentleman asks me to face the possibility. I certainly face it, and that


would be my answer if that course were necessary; but I do not think things are as bad as that, for there are many shifts, there are many other arrangements, we can make which will meet the circumstances.
First of all, I wonder whether in stringent times it is necessary for the galleries and museums to extend to the numbers they do. For instance, during the war, for six years the Edinburgh National Portrait Gallery, housing a very valuable collection which would have given every comfort to the right hon. Gentleman if he had visited that city, was closed. It was closed for the whole of the six years. And filled with what? Clerks engaged in work on identity cards for the people of Scotland. I asked a question or two on the subject. I gathered that it was more important than art—though art was very important even when the bombs were falling—for the Government to provide identity cards, and so that gallery was turned over to the business of identity cards, and instead of my being able to go to see the portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots, or the portraits of other benefactors of my country—

Mr. Bevan: Were the pictures in the gallery at the time?

Sir W. Darling: The greater proportion of the pictures were stored in the basement, although some were moved to the country for safety, but how that gives encouragement to the right hon. Gentleman and to other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite I do not know. The fact remains that during the war, when tens of thousands of men, notably from the United States, but also from elsewhere, came to the City of Edinburgh and would have liked to visit the gallery to see the representations of the greatness of our past they were denied that opportunity by the Government of the day and their successors in order that the gallery might house identity cards.
So it has been shown that dire necessity —the dire necessity of war—does make it necessary to close picture galleries and museums, and economic circumstances can also make dire necessity. So in the dire necessity of war, the Edinburgh Gallery was closed, and I have no doubt that the British Museum was closed or partly closed also. Do not let us say,

therefore, that it is absolutely necessary at all times to have museums and galleries open whatever it costs. Do not let us address ourselves to that argument. It may be that in our dire economic circumstances we are spending too much on them. It is surely quite illogical to argue that they are absolutely necessary in all circumstances.
What the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has said is something which he has said before, and something which, I think, is essentially evil and wrong. He has got to have a whipping boy for what he thinks are wrong things, quite apart from any proper criticism which might be made on the Government; and he has chosen the Treasury. It is not my business to defend the Treasury. I have never been a Minister, and I know little of the management of the affairs of the country; but surely the Treasury is 'In important Government Department, and it is upon the Treasury that not only the right hon. Gentleman but others than the right hon. Gentleman seek to cast the odium of whatever it is they dislike.
Surely it is the function of the Treasury to have the conduct of our financial affairs and to conduct them in the most economic and prudent fashion possible, and although, of course, it makes mistakes, it should not be blamed or made into a whipping boy, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make it—and has so sought on more than one occasion—for decisions which it is compelled to take in the national interest. I am bound to say this in defence of the Treasury.
Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has said, there may be perfectly legitimate criticism of how the Treasury is carrying out its duty, but that it has a public duty to perform is no ground on which to criticise it. It may have been that the matter was rather rushed—that the Treasury was told, "We are losing £5,000 here. We are not going to lose more than £5,000. See to that at once. Put up a scheme to carry out that decision." That may have been a decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Do not let us make a mountain out of a molehill, as they do who make speeches about tens of thousands of people being denied opportunity for culture, which, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale says,


exhausts one in less than an hour. Are we really to make speeches about these people being denied the somewhat boring experience which he himself admits is in that category? He really must look at the whole of the national picture, and it is absurd to select this narrow point as a basis and opportunity for attack upon a comprehensive programme.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the hon. Gentleman think it not at all important that 500,000 people a year go to the Tate Gallery?

Sir W. Darling: I should not say that was not important, but obviously many people who go there are prepared to go there only because they can go for nothing. If there are 500,000 people going each year, that is satisfactory evidence to me of demand for and interest in this opportunity, and if interest is as vivid as that—and I am delighted to learn that it is as vivid as that—then at least 10 per cent. of the 500,000 would pay for the pleasure and would not find it too much to be asked to pay 6d. for it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who represents a division of the City of Edinburgh, whether he is aware that during the national Festival, in the National Gallery of Edinburgh six people were sacked? Does he think that a good thing for the City of Edinburgh?

Sir W. Darling: Let me deal with the rather larger problem. I am dealing with a point raised by the hon. Member for Aston—that there are 500,000 people who go every year to the Tate Gallery. I accept his figure, and I am delighted to learn that there is that degree of interest in a centre of high culture. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that 10 per cent. should pay 6d. for admission? There are turnstiles there, if I remember aright. There is also, I believe, obtainable there a rather inexpensive and crowded luncheon, and I wonder whether there are not many who go for the luncheon. Would not the hon. Gentleman consider raising the price of the luncheon to offset some of the expenses?

Mr. Wyatt: May I ask what on earth the hon. Member means by 10 per cent.? Is it to be a means test or one in 10 who arrive at the gallery?

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member asks what I mean by 10 per cent. of 500,000. I had not thought to put it so simply. If

500,000 go to a particular entertainment, I suggest that there is a large demand for this form of culture and it would not be out of place to say that on certain days those who wanted to go should pay for the honour of being alone on such days when Cabinet Ministers want to solace their souls. Would it be unreasonable to charge 6d. on Mondays and Thursdays, double on Sundays, and have admission free on the other days? That would give people an opportunity of knowing on which days they would have to pay.
In answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I do not see that there should necessarily be a reduction in the staff of the art gallery to which he referred. There are many people in Edinburgh who would be willing to go as honorary guides, as they now act as honorary guides to the City of Edinburgh. That may be a practice which would not be welcomed by him or by a trade union, but it could be done and a great number of people would be willing to do it.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The hon. Member seems to overlook the fact that voluntary cleaners and doorkeepers are required. Would any of his friends volunteer for that?

Sir W. Darling: The hon. and gallant Member suggests that I am appealing for voluntary doorkeepers and cleaners—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: That is what it boils down to.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. and gallant Member said, "That is what it boils down to," a rather laundry term to use. I see nothing dishonourable in cleaning a public building or in doing any of the so-called menial tasks. It is hon. Members opposite who try to distinguish between one class of worker and another. If it is menial to do that, it is menial to be a Member of Parliament.
In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, I say that there are a number of approaches to this question. One is charges for admission; and the second is consideration by those employed of a possible reduction of or variation in their wages. That is not beyond consideration. There is. thirdly —if it is desirable to maintain these places open every day including Sunday —supplementation of the permanent staff by voluntary labour of every description.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member is treasurer of the Scottish Conservative Association. Is he in favour of the Scottish Conservative Association voluntarily cleaning their own offices?

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member brings such a delightfully various intelligence to bear that he is always entertaining and irrelevant. I am not secretary of the Scottish Conservative Association, nor treasurer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member is something.

Sir W. Darling: It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that I am something and I will bear that statement out very determinedly. I wish I could respond and say that the hon. Member is something in this matter, but he is nothing. The point he raises is without significance and I have nothing to say by way of complimentary observation.
This is an unpopular, distasteful, repugnant and offensive kind of speech which I have endeavoured to make, but I am profoundly moved by the fact that the opportunity will not be resisted by hon. Members opposite—and on this side of the Committee—to make speeches about culture, meanness, curmudgeons and cheeseparing. There will be an attack delivered by extravagant and profligate men and women against those who seek to be honest and to balance their budget. I am not to be shamed by such speeches, but I support my hon. Friend and I hope that the Treasury will practise economies not only in this field but wherever they can.

4.35 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I have always listened with great attention and interest to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), but never with such astonishment as today. I think it would be offering no secret if I told the Committee that in my view he did not believe a single word of what he said. Indeed, as he was speaking I could see a large beard beginning to grow from his chin on the analogy that in Rome all highly fed lawyers were paid according to the amount of saliva dribbling down their beards. This was because every time they said something they did not believe they spat a little down their beards as an invocation to the goddess of lies. The

hon. Member seemed to be dribbling down to the very floor and when we meet in the corridor I know that he will agree.
May I refer to an interjection I made during the speech of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis)? If I gave the impression that I agreed with the system of charges I should like to assure the hon. Member that I do not. If, however, charges were ever imposed by anyone and we could not resist them, I think he will agree that we should not, for obvious reasons, impose them on young people or students. Indeed, it would be difficult to impose a charge of any type to cover £30,000 a year for it would mean something less than 1d. per person to cover the problem we are now discussing.

Mr. Hollis: I agree very much with the hon. Member. We could have certain free days and charges on Mondays and Thursdays and there could be student tickets. I would not object to that; I would agree with the hon. Member.

Dr. Stross: In reference to the £30,000, one has to bear in mind other costs. For example, some time ago it was mentioned that we had to find three or four times as much to train one fighter pilot than this total cost of £30,000. I am not being contentious in giving these figures. The cost of one tank is probably more than £30,000. I will not say anything more about Lord Cherwell, but that payment is for something we do not quite understand.
I want to put the matter to the Financial Secretary in this way. He will agree that when the problem has been raised, and objections have been made to portions of national institutions being closed—the worth and value of which he would be the last to deny—he has said, "We are not responsible for closing any portion. We leave that as an administrative matter for the authorities in charge of the museum and art galleries. We merely ask them for some economy as part of the overall economy we want from all Departments." I think that is a fair way of putting what the hon. Gentleman said.
If that be the case, I want him to realise what the appropriate authorities are faced with. They argue like this, "In the first place we are charged with the treasures of this country and must be responsible to see that those treasures are well guarded and well preserved."


Obviously, the Committee would agree that there should never be any interference or that there should be economy in that regard. Economy must not include the fabric of the treasures themselves. Secondly, looking at the future, the authorities say that it would be extremely wrong if they interfered with the scholarship and training of their technicians and curators.
If we did, then it is the future we imperil. Curatorship in this country is not at the highest possible level because we have not valued our treasures sufficiently well. Indeed, in the provinces, there is a very sad lack of standards in curatorship, and there is much we can say in criticism of it. It is only our great national institutions that give us the feeding ground for the people who will guard, protect and exhibit these treasures all over the country. I would also include one or two private organisations such as the Cortauld Institute, of which I cannot speak too highly, for the work which they have done and which has benefited the nation.
If everyone agrees that there can be no economies in these two fields—neither in the essential scholarship associated with the museums and art galleries at this level nor in the fabric of our art treasures themselves—what can the museum authorities do but what they have done? They are asked to economise, and they have had to keep the public out from parts of their buildings or close one particular part, such as the Public Record Office Museum, because they have no other way of economising without doing essential damage to the objects themselves through neglect, or imperilling the future through debasement and disregard of scholarship and technical training.
Therefore, no one can blame the authorities themselves. That being the case, the Financial Secretary, who is always thoroughly fair when an argument is put to him, will agree that he and the Government must take the responsibility to themselves and admit it is repugnant and objectionable, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South has just indicated. He slightly inverted the emphasis, and by telling us how repugnant it was to him to make the speech he did he was in reality saying to the Financial Secretary how he disliked what was happening.
If that is so, are we not now faced with a situation in which, as a result of this action, involving a small sum of money, £30,000 a year, our young people are being deprived—and that is a grievous thing in these days when we are faced with stringency and hardship—of this type of education and consolation? It is the cheapest in the world and perhaps the most dearly treasured. In addition, as the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) pointed out, we are running the risk of losing prestige with our neighbours abroad. I have always felt—as no doubt have other hon. Members—that we have been a little discourteous to other nations in that we do not lend our treasures to them when they have great exhibitions, but we accept theirs when we have exhibitions here, and if, to this discourtesy to the foreigner, we add churlish treatment of our own people by denying access to our own treasures, it is time we took stock and thought again.
There is a simple way out. It is for the Government to say, "We did not realise when we imposed a cut that it could only be safely made in this particular way." It is no loss of face to any Government to admit having made a mistake on a point of detail such as this, which lands us all in difficulty and deprives the nation of the right to inspect its own treasures, its own heritage. I think the Government should reverse its decision.
For a long time we have been looking at something on the Order Paper described as the British Museum Bill. It is a very insufficient, curtailed, tiny document. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to have the support of some hon. Members opposite, and we shall no doubt join together to try to improve the Bill. There are some of us who remember, either through having been in the House or having read about it since, that in 1931 there was a much better Bill brought before the House called the British Museum and National Galleries Loans Bill. I must not, however, go too wide of that subject, because I could speak at some length on the desirability of a Bill of that kind being brought in.
I will leave that point and appeal to the Financial Secretary to realise that all of us on these benches, and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, look upon themselves as being the true and


real trustees of these treasures. Although we do not want this to be a quarrel of the House of Commons v. the Treasury, we feel that if the whole Committee is aligned against the Treasury, and the Financial Secretary should say, when he replies, "We will look at this matter again very carefully," no shame is involved if he admits that the Government did not realise the consequences of this economy.
We are all conscious of the fact that some people are so fortunate in their private lives that they have costly and beautiful treasures inside their own homes; but even they would be the first to admit that they need the inspiration of the great national collections which we possess to enable them to understand fully what our national treasures are really like and how widely they run. But the mass of our people have very little inside their personal homes, and there is not much in the factories at which they can look which is of aesthetic value. These treasures belong to us all, so it is all the more important that they should have an opportunity of seeing them.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been present I would have said to him that his constituents live in a division which is much more beautiful than mine. They have a right to thank God for the beauties they see in the woods and streams near where they live. My constituents have to thank God for the use and presence of their eyelids rather than their eyes in order to shut out some of the ugliness in which they live and work.
Surely we have a right to put forward special pleading on behalf of our people when we say that there should be no bar between themselves and these treasures. Lastly, let us remember that part of our education must be here in the West to appreciate, first, the roots from which our civilisation springs, and, secondly, to learn something of its full flowering in the arts generally. This miserable £30,000 strikes both at the root and at the bloom and, therefore, we are asking for a reversal of this decision, knowing that we have every right to do so. If we fail in our appeal today we can only console ourselves by declaring that there can be only one Government —the Government that imposes this—

that will be responsible. No other succeeding Government would ever sustain or retain these economies.

4.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: It was less than three weeks ago that I raised this subject on the Adjournment, and today it is very gratifying that the Opposition should have thought it of such importance that they have devoted half a Supply Day to its further discussion—discussion which must be more fruitful and range over a wider field than is possible in the narrow confines of an Adjournment debate.
We have heard some very interesting and useful speeches this afternoon. The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), who opened the debate, was much more restrained than when he spoke on the Adjournment Motion, and he paid me the compliment, although he did not express it, of enumerating some of the museums which had suffered through closing or partial closing and which I mentioned on the previous occasion. We also had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He paid what, I think, was a very remarkable tribute to private enterprise, because he said that when Osterley Park had been in the ownership of Lord Jersey it was easy to get into to see it, and now that it had become a nationalised institution no one could go there. We are very grateful to him for having made that point so very clearly.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman recollect that he had to restrain private enterprise from scratching the mahogany?

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: That is not private enterprise; it is public mischief. I had occasion in a Question recently to call attention to that sort of thing in connection with the walls of Westminster Hall.
I wish again to revert to the suggestion which I made during the Adjournment debate, upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has enlarged this afternoon, and that is making good the cuts—we appreciate and accept the necessity for them—by introducing a charge where that may be possible and there is no legal objection.
The Public Record Office Museum is a great institution which, until the middle


of May, had been open almost without a break since 1886. It has a tremendous range of historical treasures from the Domesday Book right down to, for example, the Treaty of 1839 guaranteeing the integrity of Belgium, the treaty which was described by the German Chancellor on the eve of the first World War as " a scrap of paper." Such documents as these are part of our national history and command tremendous interest, not only among young people and students, but throughout the civilised world where our institutions are respected and studied.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, the Public Record Office has power by statute to make charges. Charges are made for researches among the legal documents, and I wonder whether the Financial Secretary could take them into account when considering the cuts which have to be made there. There is no doubt that the closing of the Public Record Office Museum has been a tremendous disappointment to many visitors from the Commonwealth and the United States, and I hope that before the Coronation some means will be found of opening the room or rooms in which these treasures are housed. It should not entail a very great expenditure or much rearrangement of staff.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when it was suggested that the Public Record Office Museum should be re-opened in Coronation year the Financial Secretary said that it was for the authorities of the Public Record Office to decide whether and when they could reopen the museum? The Financial Secretary placed the responsibility on the Public Record Office itself to decide if and when the museum shall reopen.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will feel able to consult the authorities with that end in view.
In the previous debate the Financial Secretary rejected the suggestion that the cuts necessarily involved a closure of gallery space. That raises the very important consideration of security. There might be very great risk if rooms which have now been closed were to be opened again. There have been more museum thefts since the end of the war than at any other time in our history. The hon.

Member for Aston referred to the theft of the Duke of Wellington's sword from the Victoria and Albert Museum. There was also the theft from the National Maritime Museum of the even more valuable Nelson relics, none of which has been recovered.
I understand that as a result of these thefts Scotland Yard recently told the British Museum authorities that they must employ more warders at other institutions under their care, such as the Newspaper Repository at Colindale. It was therefore necessary for the museum's already depleted warder staff to be depleted still further so that that recent modern building could be adequately guarded.
The emphasis so far in this debate and in the previous debate has been on the non-industrial staff, which the Financial Secretary assured us on the first occasion was all that was affected. I am not satisfied that that is so. We ought to have some assurance that every effort is being made to prevent the cuts from affecting the technical and curatorial staff as well as the non-industrial staff.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) referred to the objects for which museums exist. He did not actually quote "The Times," but the first two objects which he set out are as stated in the very excellent leading article which appears in "The Times" today, to which reference has already been made. It may be that the hon. Member was the author of the leading article and perhaps desires to preserve his anonymity. The first point was that it is necessary to conserve our treasures.

Dr. Stross: For the sake of the record and so that no one's feelings shall be hurt, perhaps I might say that I deny having written that very excellent article, but the gist of it is in the knowledge of many of us who take an interest in these matters.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance. I am glad that we think alike about the merits of the article.
The second point made by the article is that we should maintain and build up our staff of scholars. This staff, as well as the non-industrial staff, seems to be endangered by the cuts. That danger is reflected in the fact that some


of the posts remain unfilled and that some technicians who are reaching retiring age have not trained successors to carry on their form of skilled work. Thus, there is a likelihood that specialised knowledge acquired over many years, often by long study and difficult processes, will be thrown away and that the efficiency of the institutions will be diminished.
To refer again to the British Museum, there is a danger that craftsmen will not be replaced. There are technicians engaged, for example, in the restoration of manuscripts, and this craft is in danger, if not of being lost, certainly of being run down. I understand that the expert on the mounting of Japanese prints, which is a very specialised and difficult operation, is shortly to retire and that there is no fully qualified successor to carry on his work. Again there are a number of Assistant Keeperships which are now vacant. They have not been advertised, and it seems to me that the museum authorities are purposely not filling those posts in order to try to effect savings—as they must—in conformity with what has been imposed upon them.
In the previous debate the Financial Secretary argued that the galleries as a whole are better now, in spite of the cuts, than they were in 1939. The figures he gave have already been quoted by the hon. Member for Aston. The Financial Secretary argued that they show no justification for the closing of any galleries at all. He also pointed out that there is something like 59 additional staff above what the museums had in 1939, and yet there is considerably far less space to maintain on account of war damage and other reasons.
Surely we cannot say that the number of staff which was sufficient in 1939 is sufficient now, and that the cuts now proposed are more than offset by the increases which have taken place during the last 12 years. Museums are not static institutions. Constant additions are being made to their collections and, in the case of the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum, to their libraries. For instance, the recent discoveries at Sutton Hoo, about which I am not qualified to speak, had aroused immense archæological interest and resulted in the diversion of a considerable number of the academic staff from the British Museum.

A museum or art gallery cannot be considered like any other Government Department. It is continually expanding and adding to its collections, and its advice is sought here and there on all kinds of matters of artistic and academic interests.
One final point about the technical side, which was raised by the hon. Member for Aston. I want to refer to the photographic work, which is a purely mechanical operation but is very important because of the demands which are made by foreign institutions for photo-stat or micro-film reproduction of documents. A few years ago I was in the library of Congress at Washington, and I was impressed by the photostat reproductions of documents in the Record Office and in the manuscript department of the British Museum which they had already acquired.
The authorities in the Congressional Library told me that they hoped in the course of the next few years to have photographed in England as many documents as they possibly could. That is an important point to consider, because it means dollars coming to this country. Institutions that are interested in reproducing documents in our galleries and museums here have got the funds to do it, but it is almost impossible for the present staff to satisfy their demand. If the photographic sections are to be reduced, it seems to me an unwise economy.
I would simply say in conclusion, unfortunate as it is that the public have to suffer from the effect of these cuts, it will be more unfortunate if the technical efficiency of the museums and the art galleries is permitted to run down, and I ask my hon. Friend most sincerely to give us some assurance that that eventuality will not ultimately come to pass.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I hope enough has been said already in this debate, both from this side of the Committee and from the other, to convince the Government that they have made a first-class blunder in introducing these ridiculous cuts in the museums' service of the country. It is another and classical instance of the Treasury disregarding public opinion in this country. They have not merely offended all considered opinion which realises the great value of our museums and art galleries, but they have


offended public opinion throughout the country. I hope that as a result of what has been said—I am afraid it is difficult to believe that they will—both here in this debate and outside, the Treasury will realise the folly of their ways and will abolish this absurd economy.
I have always been in favour of very considerable economies being made in our national finances. There is very great room for economies of all kinds, but this is not one of them. Combined these economies will make a contribution of £30,000 a year, and the Chancellor is budgeting for a surplus like £350 million. In that state of affairs, what use is this miserable economy? It will be at a cost which cannot be measured in money value, but it will be at the expense of the scholarship, education, culture, enjoyment and entertainment of the people of this country. That is the measure of the price which the Government are asking us to pay for a miserable economy of £30,000.
It is not as if we had been any too generous or too lavish in our expenditure on the national museums and art galleries before these economies were introduced. The amount being spent on culture of this kind leaves a great deal to be desired compared with the amount which is spent in other countries. I am not sure whether it is in order on this Vote to criticise the general museum administration in the country, but I do not think the Treasury have realised—some hon. Members on the benches opposite do not seem to realise it either—that these museums and art galleries are not merely places to which people can go to study the treasures and masterpieces and the works of genius of the past. They are also places to which people go to be educated in standards and tests for modern living today.
These art galleries and museums do a great deal to compensate the public of today for some of the vulgarities that were introduced by the industrialists of the 19th century. They are a fundamental source of our national education, and in so far as they are used for that, they make a great contribution not merely to the culture and scholarship of the State, but to wise and sensible living by the people of the country.
Other hon. Members have already referred to the admirable leading article in

today's "Times," which refers to the various objects which museums serve. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) pointed out that as a result of this economy the first sufferers will be the public, because the immediate result has been to close down some of the public galleries and museums. That I regard as, firstly, a most serious result, but the secondary result is equally serious, and that is the effect it will have on the scholarship of the future.
I hope that if these cuts are persisted in—and I hope they will not be—we shall have an assurance from the Financial Secretary, if he is able to give it, which I very much doubt, that in none of the museums will there be any hesitation in filling any vacancies for curatorships, or any other scholastic or administrative positions, on the grounds of economy.
The effect of these cuts varies from one museum to another. An hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the Public Record Office. Why should the museum there be closed? Why should a charge be made? People who visit that museum go there either for pure scholarship—and surely it is not sensible to ask them to pay—or because they are foreign visitors or visitors from the provinces, who go as a matter of interest. Why should they be asked to make a payment?
Reference has been made to the London Museum and to the fact that there will be no cuts in the staff there. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary thinks that the present administration of the London Museum is satisfactory. It is housed temporarily at Kensington Palace in totally inadequate and inappropriate accommodation. I have mentioned before that I hope the Government and the London County Council will find a site for the London Museum on the South Bank. London, like every great municipality and cosmopolitan centre, ought to have a museum of its own, worthy of its name and properly housed, and I think the appropriate site is on the South Bank. It is no credit to the Government to reflect that some museums, such as the London, have not to make reductions in their staffs.
What of those who have had to make reductions? Does the Financial Secretary realise the inconvenience caused to scholars who find that part of a museum


is closed on alternate days, or that they can only go to museums by obtaining special permission? That is not very satisfactory. For example, suppose I wanted to study Chinese sculpture at the British Museum and to compare it with Egyptian sculpture. I should now have to go there on separate days whereas, in order properly to make a comparison, I ought to be able to do so on the same day.
In addition to the hardships and difficulties caused by these economies there is the enormous loss of prestige from the fact that foreign visitors are finding that the former free and open access to our museums and art galleries on any day and at any time is hedged about with restrictions, the precise details of which it is difficult for them to ascertain. I am not in favour of closing a museum on any day of the week. The French system by which all museums are closed on Mondays is at least intelligible, because the public know where they are. As a result of the present economies nobody interested in these matters knows from one day to another what he can see or what he cannot.
There was the case the other day of a very distinguished visitor from the Egyptian Ministry of Education. He particularly wanted to see something in a museum. He was only here for a very short visit. He went to a particular gallery, but it was closed. He made an application to visit it specially, but was at first told that he could not do so. Finally, one of the few remaining wardens had to be detailed from another part of the building to be in constant attendance on the visitor while he was making his special visit to the gallery, thus depleting the staff of wardens guarding other parts of the building. It made the foreign visitor very uncomfortable, because instead of examining objects at his leisure he had to do so in a hurried manner. That is not the kind of service we ought to be providing in our museums, in which our country has hitherto taken such a great pride.
There is another point about these niggardly economies which is equally serious and has not yet been mentioned. I was very surprised to find that the museums had raised their fees for reproducing photographs of exhibits. We are

hard put to it, owing to the high cost of printing, and paper shortage, to produce artistic publications of a quality to compete in international repute with those produced, say, in the United States or in Switzerland. Distinguished workers in this field have occasion from time to time to reproduce exhibits from our museums in the books they are writing. The fees charged for such reproduction used to be purely nominal, but they have now been increased to as much as a guinea for each reproduction. Surely that is an unnecessary and unwarranted tax on scholarship. What is the result? It is now more difficult for those interested in describing the treasures of our museums to reproduce as many of them by way of illustration as they would like to. Therefore they become less known—I know the Financial Secretary is not particularly interested in this subject. It is good of him to be here. I was saying—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I heard the hon. Member.

Mr. Fletcher: I commend this matter to his attention. It is hard that the hon. Gentleman should have been left with the burden of trying to defend this indefensible measure on behalf of the Government. I do not know who was responsible for it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a high standard of artistic taste. His whole history and connections are associated with some of those who have devoted a good deal of time and money to the patronage of culture. It is inconsistent with his general outlook on life that he should seek to defend this mean, niggardly, shortsighted and quite unnecessary measure.
For those reasons, I hope we shall hear before this debate is ended that the Treasury have thought better of this measure and are prepared to reverse their decision in order that the public can have the free, cheap and open access to our museums which they have hitherto enjoyed.

5.22 p.m.

Sir Edward Keeling: We on this side of the Committee are pledged to a reduction of national expenditure, and I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) when he says that the Government ought not to have postponed the opening of Osterley House, which is


to be an annexe to the Victoria and Albert Museum. I understand that the reasons for postponing that opening were that the money and materials and labour could be put to better use. In the circumstances I think it was right to postpone the opening, though I hope very much that Osterley House will be opened next year.
At the same time, I agree with what was said on the other side of the Committee on the general question. I cannot approve of the action of the Government. Because the amount involved was small, and therefore presumably it was not thought worth while to argue the matter, the Treasury appears to have rationed the museums and galleries. If ever there was a case in which it is not suitable to effect a cut by rationing, surely it is that of the museums and the galleries.
Apparently there was no consultation with any of those responsible. In my opinion there should have been a conference to decide how, if at all, economies could be brought about. Instead of that, there was this arbitrary cut by rule of thumb, and the results on learning and on aesthetic culture have been little short of deplorable. I regret very much that I cannot support the Government tonight.

5.24 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The Committee will have heard with interest and sympathy the forthright statement made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling). I am looking forward to the pleasure of accompanying him through the Lobbies tonight when we record our protest against the action taken by the Government on this matter.
The hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde), who, I regret to see, is not in his place at the moment, is entitled to the credit of having done some pioneering work in this matter, for it was he who raised it on the Adjournment on 25th June. In the course of the Government reply on that occasion, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made one or two interesting, if not startling observations. He began by saying that there had been a genuine misunderstanding about this matter. Unfortunately, from my point of view and that of those who are interested there has been no misunderstanding; we realise only

too well what has happened and what its effect will be.
The only speech made today in support of the policy of the Government has been that delivered by the bon. Member for Edinburgh, West—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: North.

Mr. Wyatt: No. South.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am being misguided by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who, I thought, was an authority on Scottish geography.
As for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) I will content myself by saying that it is a measure of the weakness, the futility and the stupidity of the case of the Government that it has to rely on the support of that hon. Member, and that only that kind of speech can be made in support of its policy.
The hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North asked about the nature of the staff that is being dispensed with. It appears that 84 persons are involved, and the impression I have formed is that the majority are not technical staff or high class administrative staff but industrial staff. These 84 men or women are either wardens, cleaners or doorkeepers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh. South appealed for volunteers. He suggested that people might be only too pleased to act as guides and, in that way, the museums and art galleries could be kept open. I intervened to point out that the root of the problem here is the way in which these economies are being effected, namely, by dispensing with the industrial staff I have mentioned.
The most flagrant case of all is that of the Public Record Office Museum where the savings are to be effected by dispensing with five employees. So far as I can gather, they do not include the Director, Deputy-Director or librarians but consist of those people without whom it is not possible to keep the museum open to the general public.
What is particularly cowardly about the attitude adopted by the Financial Secretary is the circular that was sent out by the Treasury. We do not know what it said because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) pointed out, it was a cyclostyled circular in


which was inserted the figure showing of what cut ought to be made by the office or Department to which it was addressed. The Financial Secretary, in the course of the Adjournment debate to which I have referred, said:
We have not closed any gallery or given any instruction to do so. In fact, the matter is one for the museum authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2409.]
I submit that that is one of the most cowardly forms of defence that any Government can adopt by way of excusing certain economies, avoidable or inevitable as the case may be.
It is clear that the Government—the Chancellor, the Financial Secretary, and the Treasury—must accept responsibility for this decision, and it is in breach of all the traditions to which we attach any value that the Government should seek to transfer the blame for that unpopular and unjustifiable decision from their own shoulders to the shoulders of the distinguished and devoted public servants who are in charge of these galleries and museums.
The Financial Secretary went on to say that he rejected entirely the suggestion that the cut inevitably involved the closure of public gallery space. If he sends out a circular to a museum or a gallery stating that there must be a 5 per cent. cut in the staff, obviously that circular is sent out by the Treasury under the assumption that such a cut would not involve any closure of public gallery space.
When it was found by those directly concerned that it was impossible to make the cuts which the Government were seeking without closing gallery space, I submit that the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have entered into conference with the heads of these museums and art galleries with a view to finding what was the best way in which these cuts could be made without serious detriment to the general public.
I will quote one further statement by the Financial Secretary, one which he made towards the end of his reply in the Adjournment debate of 25th June. It occurs at column 2411 of HANSARD of that date. We had been pleading with him to mitigate the effects of these cuts,

and this is how he faced his administrative responsibility:
I very much hope that those who are responsible for the executive decisions in this field will take note of what has been said this evening."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2411.]
The Committee will observe that he does not think it incumbent upon him to take any note of what the House said on that occasion. He again passes the buck, if I may use a colloquialism, either to civil servants in the Treasury or to the heads of these museums, hoping that they will take note of what we in the House or in this Committee may have to say on the subject.
We ask the Financial Secretary and the Government not to seek to disembarrass themselves in this rather shabby way of their responsibility for what is an even shabbier and more paltry device—namely, the hope of saving £30,000 by cuts imposed on these museums. We have been trying to find out who has the responsibility for this decision, and the remarks which I have quoted from the Financial Secretary's speech seem to indicate that he himself is unwilling to accept that responsibility. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible, but we do not know, and we should like to hear what the Financial Secretary has to say about it.
At the moment the Public Record Office Museum is closed indefinitely, so that access to important national treasures is denied to the public of this country and to visitors from abroad—such as the Magna Carta and documents of historic interest to visitors from the United States. At present we are spending money in the United States in urging people to come to this country to see our national treasures, but when they get here they find that the Public Record Office Museum, which contains some fascinating documents from the time of George III —for instance, correspondence which passed between him and Washington—is closed to those visitors from whom we are seeking to obtain dollars to help us bridge the dollar gap.
In the course of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North I ventured to point out that on 26th June the Financial Secretary gave a Written answer to a non-Oral Question— and I repeat this because it is a further indication of the dubious method being followed


by the Financial Secretary in seeking to evade his responsibilities:
It is for the authorities of the Public Record Office to decide whether and when they can re-open the Museum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 205.]
Surely that is playing with words? It is a fact that, as a result of a Treasury circular, the authorities at the Public Record Office were left with no option in the matter. It was the Treasury who forced the closing down of the Public Record Office Museum in Chancery Lane. If they seek to deny their responsibility, then it should have been their duty to point out to the authorities of the Public Record Office that it was possible to comply with the Treasury circular without closing the museum altogether; but that they did not do. They imposed an arbitrary cut and took not the slightest trouble thereafter to find out how the cut would work in terms of accessibility to or availability of the exhibits in the museum.
Even at this late stage, the Government should be advised to bear in mind the comparison between the £30,000 which it is hoped to save by this economy and the total amount of £4,000 million of our National Budget; and they should try to cultivate a sense of proportion. As has been pointed out, the Government have sought to do a paltry, mean and niggardly thing. I hope it is not too late to appeal to them to change their mind. If they do change their mind, I can promise them for myself, and I think also on behalf of my hon. Friends, that we shall not twit them in future with having had to change their mind. This was an economy which they sought to make without appreciating the consequences which inevitably flow from seeking to apply to museums and art galleries the same kind of test as that which they apply to Government Departments employing thousands of civil servants both on the administrative and industrial sides.
In this case the Government have used a weapon which was not applicable to our museums and art galleries. As the Financial Secretary himself admitted in the Adjournment debate to which I have referred, these cuts are all part of a general scheme for a reduction of the numbers employed in the public service. It may well be that, as a result of Government policy in other directions, the numbers employed in the public service

can be reduced, have been reduced and will be further reduced.
The last field in which these Draconian methods can be successfully applied is in our museums and art galleries. I therefore appeal to the Financial Secretary to say that the matter is being reconsidered. Otherwise, I very much hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will seek to press this matter to a Division.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I am quite sure that this debate has shown one thing, and that is that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee view with the greatest reluctance any measure which cuts off our people from any part of our cultural heritage. Nevertheless, we can, I think, put that forward without in any way approbating what seemed to me to be the intellectual arrogance of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) when he made use of the facts produced the other day by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde).
Nor is it necessary to go to the length of the exaggerations which we heard from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who told us a touching personal story about the way he stopped a child scratching furniture. There has never been a time when there was a warder in every gallery in the Victoria and Albert Museum; and I cannot recollect a time when there was ever a warder, at any time when I have been there, in that particular gallery downstairs.
After all, even in the main gallery of the National Gallery itself, in spite of all the warders we had before the war, there was the desecration of the Rokeby Venus, slashed by the suffragettes. I suppose that, in a way, we ought to be thankful even for that act of cultural desecration if today we are to have replying to this debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.

Miss Horsbrugh: I was not responsible for that.

Mr. Simon: I hasten to disclaim any personal accusation.
We have, nevertheless, suffered very real loss by the closing of these galleries. In the British Museum, for example, we can no longer see the magnificent gallery


of African masks. They are masks donned in their native country by normally mild mannered middle-aged gentlemen in order to simulate completely synthetic fury and indignation and thus frighten their enemies, political and otherwise. That is no longer on view; and, of course, cannot be seen anywhere else. At the National History Museum the gallery of mammals is closed. No longer can we see a lot of animals petrified in gestures grotesque and powerful. That cannot be seen anywhere else. At the Tate Gallery we can no longer see a lady with fish in her hair. Those things are quite irreplaceable. But, quite seriously, with them go a number of matters which we can very ill-spare.
I suggest that whenever we rail, as we do, against measures of economy, we ought to make sure that we suggest where the corresponding sum can be found. During the war there was a very valuable exercise laid down in every staff that when anybody suggested any increase in an establishment they should suggest where the corresponding decrease should be made. Today, no serious suggestion has been made as to where this sum of £30,000 could be found.
There is one other thing that I think is incumbent on us, and that is to see, if we must have economies of this sort, what we can do to mitigate them. I suggest that at the very least it should be widely known that students can have recourse to any gallery which is closed. That is no new thing when certain portions of a gallery are cut off from the general public. The Print Room at the British Museum is, I suppose, the most famous example. Students have always been able to have recourse to the Print Room, and I ask whoever replies for the Government to assure us that it is widely known that anyone who has a particular interest in any gallery shall be able to have recourse to it.
I also suggest that we ought at any rate to consider a system of charging. That is really not such a retrograde step. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Aston to the fact that the galleries of armour at the Wallace Collection are now closed. That is true. But there are magnificent armouries, as hon. Members know well, at the Tower of London, and one has always had to pay for admission

to those galleries. Any system of charging would, of course, have to ensure that it did not stop anyone who genuinely could not afford admission, so there ought, I suggest, to be only certain days on which admission should be charged for. I may be wrong about this, but it is my recollection that before the war there was such a system at the National Gallery.

Mr, Ronald Williams: I want to be quite sure that I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting that the Government should withdraw this proposal, since they can quite easily obtain this very small sum of £30,000 by a very moderate charge? Is he suggesting that the Government should change their view and put into effect the suggestion he is making? Or is he suggesting that the Government should adhere to their point of view and insist on these cuts, and, having insisted on these cuts, seek to bolster up the national economy by a system of charges?

Mr. Simon: The point I was trying to make was this. If we are assured by the Government, with knowledge of the national finances, that £30,000 a year must be found on the Museums Votes, then I ask the Government to examine the suggestion for a limited form of charging to raise £30,000 so that all the galleries now open can remain open. As I say, that ought to be on only certain days of the week, so that everybody can be assured of free admission to these galleries. It ought not to apply to students any more than the restrictions on the Print Room at the British Museum apply to them. Consideration ought also to be given to whether it ought not to apply, as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, to young persons.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) mentioned another matter which seemed to me to arise in the present situation. If the galleries are to be closed at the moment, I ask the Government seriously to consider whether we should not use the exhibits in them which are not on general view by loaning them to provincial galleries. I should like to see that go further and to have a free lending abroad of the national exhibits. I know that there are legal difficulties at the moment, but I and many of my hon. Friends believe that those legal difficulties should be overcome.
Finally, I ask the Committee to view this matter against the general situation of this country. Let us never forget that there are other ways of losing objects of artistic value than by closing galleries. I am sure that many hon. Members who served abroad, as I did, must call to mind many relics of ancient civilisation which one saw. One suddenly burst through into a clearing in the jungle, and there was a great monument richly carved and sculptured, which was actually being forced apart by jungle roots.
One has seen two caverns ornamented with wonderful pictures—the Ajanta paintings—where the sands had drifted in. These monuments of civilisation, monuments of art as great in their own way as anything we have in our national museums and galleries, have deteriorated and been destroyed and have decayed because the civilisation which they represented has fallen. It has fallen owing partly to an external enemy, but more often to inept leadership on the part of the governors of that community, governors who were profligate of the national wellbeing, the economy—taxes raised, people groaning under the burden of wars until, gradually, owing to improvident government, that civilisation deteriorated and these great monuments have been lost.
I ask hon. Members to view this matter against the general background of the national economy. Unless we can save this country generally from the certain ruin which faces us unless we balance our economy, it will be idle to talk of water colours and armouries—

Mr. Wyatt: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the 84 men who have been dismissed are, for the most part. rather elderly, and that even if they were to go into industry would probably find it difficult to get jobs. Even if they might be switched to other kinds of work, which is doubtful, they are unlikely to help our export trade greatly or save us from the disasters which the hon. and learned Member now envisages.

Mr. Simon: Nothing is easier than to take every economy on its own instead of considering it as part of the general background of the position which we have to meet. Each one of these economies can be so attacked.
Much as we all dislike these cuts which have been made, ardently as we should seek to mitigate and avoid them, I ask hon. Members not to lose sight of the general background against which they stand, not to lose sight of the fact that they are part of the steps which the Government have taken to save the country from ruin, and to remember that these great artistic treasures and the heritage they represent would disappear with us if we went down to ruin.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) was a pretty half-hearted defence of this economy. There was one point at which I was a little moved—when we broke through the jungle and found the ancient stone monument sitting there, cracking up all the time. I felt inclined to say to the hon. and learned Member, if I might use a well-known Latin tag, "Si monu-mentum requiris circumspice."
There it was—one defence on the lines of "Well, when you have to economise, economise on everything." I have been listening to the speeches from the benches opposite, and I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) that he was the only person who made any defence of the economy. He made it merely by putting his tongue into his cheek in order to avoid putting his hand into his pocket.
No one else has really had a word to say for it. Let us see exactly what has happened. The museum and gallery authorities have been told that they have to reduce by so much somehow; it has been left to them how they do it. Of course some have done it in one way, some in another. In some cases this or that has been closed indefinitely, in other cases there has been a partial closing, and no doubt in other cases there have been economies at the expense of students and others.
I wish to state the position on the most broad and general lines. What has really happened is that the Government, which in spite of imminent bankruptcy and the rest of it, declined to put any additional burden on the country in the Budget, and in fact reduced the Profits Tax, have chosen to tell all public Departments, irrespective of what they


do, that they must economise everywhere. The result, so far as the matter we are discussing is concerned, is that this country is to be obliged to spend £30,000 per year less on its museums and art galleries.
I should like to put to the Committee the question, do they really think that that is either a wise or a right thing to do at the moment? I will deal first with the wisdom of the matter. I confess that I did not quite follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) in mourning quite so deeply as he did for the Pennsylvanian visitor deprived of a sight of a pipe roll in the Record Office. That is perhaps pushing the matter a little too far, but people do come to this country sometimes for such a special purpose, though more often to see what we have to show them, not only in our countryside but in the heritage of centuries of civilisation in which we are entitled to take some pride, centuries of civilisation and of achievement in our artistic efforts of which we are, on the whole, not very good advertisers.
There is a great deal to be said for our own works of art. We are not in the habit—since the time of the Industrial Revolution—of saying it at all loudly or as convincingly as we ought to say it. Still, people know there is that heritage here, and it is one of their main reasons for coming to this country. From the mere point of view of the narrowest Treasury economy it seems to me exceedingly foolish to save £30,000 by arranging, for example, that certain parts of the British Museum shall be open on even days and others on odd days. And this habit of transferring our parking arrangements to the fine arts is really rather silly. It makes us a little ridiculous as a nation in the eyes of other countries.
I go further; I say it is dead wrong to do this kind of thing. We have, as I have just said, a very fine record of our own in the arts. It is open to question whether it has been as good as it might be, but it is certainly not in question that at present we are uncommonly niggardly about anything that has to do with the arts. We have not got the room to show the pictures and other works of art which we possess, even if we opened our museums to the full.
If we look at the payments concerned with any artistic or educational activity, we shall find that it is just there that we tend to underpay. It is not without significance that we have never had a Ministry of Fine Arts in this country, though other countries have one and have had good reason to be proud of it.
It is really rather like this country at its worst, that the person who has to answer for the question of whether the museums and art galleries shall or shall not be wholly opened, partially opened, or whatever it may be, is, under the British constitution, of which we are all justifiably proud, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The fact of the matter is that the English have been called barbarians, and there is something in it. If we go on in this way it will not be very long before we shall be following Mr. Hitler and the Nazis and burning the books, and the rest of it. That sounds very remote. It could not happen here, of course—quite impossible. But this is a thoroughly backward step. It is quite a small one, it is a silly one, a stupid one, but none the less it is a backward step.
I say to hon. Members opposite who, recognising that, as did the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), for instance, tried to get out of it by saying, "Oh, well, ought not a 1d. or 6d., or whatever amount it is, be charged for admittance?", that that too would be a backward step. It would not be quite as bad as denying people admission altogether, but it would be a backward step. Is not it about time—

Mr. Hollis: Will the hon. and learned Member elaborate that a little? Why would it be a backward step? It would not keep anybody out of the museums.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not know, perhaps the hon. Member is more certain of that than I am. If we go into a gallery or a museum now-a-days, one of the things that I, at any rate, notice is that really poor people come in—not merely for shelter, as one hon. Member opposite suggested—but to look at what is there, to learn from it and to admire it. And who is to say that the stirrings of the artistic soul are confined to those who can afford to pay 6d. whenever they want to?

Mr. Hollis: The hon. and learned Member cannot say on the one hand that there is this enormous public demand to


get into the galleries, and on the other hand that if a charge of 2d. or 6d. is made they will be completely empty. I agree there is the particular case of people who could not afford that small fee. But nobody is suggesting that there shall not be free days when they can come.

Mr. Mitchison: I am not suggesting that if we charge 2d. or 6d. the galleries will be empty. I am merely suggesting that if we charge for the admission to galleries and museums, just as if we charged for admission to education, we might shut out the very people we want the most.
We have had artists from humble folk and we still have. I do not think it is right that a civilised and—in spite of what hon. Members opposite say—a wealthy country should economise at the expense of what is not only beautiful but promising in the effect it may have on those who see it. There are in these museums and galleries not merely things one can look at as though they were dead. These are the sources of artistic inspiration, the font of artistic education, something that can stir the simplest and the plainest people as deeply, and perhaps more deeply, than it can stir the over-cultured among us.
I remember one director of a northern gallery saying to me that he noticed one rather peculiar thing. He had just bought for the gallery an exceedingly modern picture, and he had great difficulty in getting it past his own selection board. When he put it in the gallery that was the picture which was looked at, not as a matter of curiosity but as a matter of admiration, by the ordinary men and women who came into the gallery and who had no sort of special knowledge of pictures or anything of the kind. I think that people underestimate both the value and the extent of popular taste and the possibilities of it. Whether that applies to books or not I must leave to the hon. Member for Devizes to judge. I am speaking for the moment of pictures.
I hope against hope that the Government will reconsider this. It was only part of a routine cut. It is not the kind of thing that, if it is re-considered, will break the Government. But it is the kind of thing which may do incredible harm, not merely to a political party or to one Government, but to the general reputation of this country, which, after

all, we all have to consider. It may do harm, not only to that, but to the artistic impulse of this country; to the possibilities of what the young and perhaps the old, but particularly the young, may get from the treasures we have inherited or bought.
After all, they are public treasures. To close them makes them useless. To shut them away prevents their being used, either as objects of admiration or as objects of study. This is comparatively speaking a small amount. We have been toying with—what was it?—£160 million for the food subsidies. And £60 million suddenly appeared the other day because we had thought the cut was for the whole amount. But, oh, no, it was only at the rate of so-and-so. I do not think we are called upon to suggest to the Government or the Treasury exactly how or where they should find this £30,000. But we are entitled to say today that, as a mere Treasury point of view, from the pure point of view of tourism, it is extremely short-sighted.
From any other point of view it is so thoroughly unjustifiable, so thoroughly in the worst caricature of the British at their stupidest, that we really ought not to persist in it. It requires a bit of courage sometimes, having put something forward, to drop it. But I do not believe that the Financial Secretary is deficient in courage, and I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a real lover of the Arts. Could not they put their heads together and, for once, beat a dignified and meritorious retreat?

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. I certainly shall not attempt to follow the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in the excitement which he has generated over this rather small cut which has been made in the expenditure on museums and art galleries.
I am sorry, as he is, that this sort of cut, however small, has had to be made. It is a proportionate cut forming part of the general reduction in expenditure. It is quite obvious that anyone can take the popular course of advocating economy in general and attacking it in particular. There is a great deal to be said against any economy, because it reduces the interests of some particular class of


people. No economy is popular in its actual application. Nor is it beneficial in its actual application.
The benefit which is provided is the general benefit of the country, by reducing the expenditure to a point which the country can afford. If there is any personal advantage to be derived from this cut, it is that if any charge, however small, is imposed upon the entrance into our galleries and museums, it will underline the fact, which should never be lost sight of, that everything has to be paid for, including art.
I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering when he says, firstly, that the artistic impulse will be restrained by this slight impediment, or that any substantial number of people would be kept out of museums and art galleries by the imposition of a small charge. I cannot think of anybody who will be kept out of a museum that he wants to get into because of a charge of 6d. for entering it. The same applies to art galleries.
My recollection of most of the art galleries I have visited on the Continent of Europe is that I have had to pay at nearly all of them. I can think of only one or two where I got in free. I would say to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering that the artistic capabilities of the Italians are not notably inferior to our own, nor have they been inferior for the last 500 or 600 years. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would get into many art galleries or museums in the City of Florence without paying a small fee for the privilege.

Mr. R. Williams: I should like to put to the hon. Gentleman a point which I put to one of his hon. Friends who made a similar speech. Does the hon. Member say that this is a bad principle and that this cut which is proposed by the Government is something that makes him feel uncomfortable? Because he feels uncomfortable about it does he seek to find in some other way the £30,000 which the Government want? Does he suggest that that should be provided for by the introduction of a charge? Is that, in short compass, the argument which he is putting?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member is taking the question to a ridiculous point. I feel

uncomfortable, and I regret that art galleries and museums should be open less often than they are at present. I do not regret the cut if it is necessary and if it is a proportionate part of the general economies introduced by the Government.

Mr. R. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman want the cut and the charge?

Mr. Bell: I do not want the cut in itself. As I have said, although the economies in general are of advantage to the country, each separate economy in its effects is naturally undesirable. That is obvious. I advance the alternative of a charge as something which, while preserving the economy, might keep the museums and art galleries open longer. That is obviously desirable.
I turn to a matter in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows that I am interested in season and out of season. I hope that it is in season today and, having scrutinised the Vote very carefully, I am confident that I shall be in order in raising it. I refer to my standing grievance that the Reading Room of the British Museum is closed at 5 o'clock in the evening, therefore confining its use to professional scholars.
The only time when someone who is not a whole-time scholar is able to use the principal reading room of the United Kingdom is on Saturdays. Then it is difficult to get in and, in any case, no prolonged and intensive research can be carried out by someone confined to such Saturdays as he is able to devote to attendance at the British Museum.

Mr. Mitchison: I sympathise very much with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but am I not right in suggesting that if in fact the British Museum Reading Room were kept open longer either additional staff or additional remuneration to the existing staff would be required?

Mr. Bell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is rather unfairly drawing me back to the particular considerations of today when I was trying as unobtrusively as possible to slide away from them in order to deal with this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the opening of the British Museum Reading Room has not been affected by the recent cuts. However, having consulted the Vote I am confident that my remarks, if not germane to the preceding speeches,


are strictly in order. Therefore, I seize the opportunity to drive home once again a point I have made on other occasions.
It is regrettable that this Reading Room should be closed so early in the evening. At Oxford the Bodleian Library and the Radcliffe Camera are open until 10 o'clock, and I understand that the University Library at Cambridge is also open to a fairly advanced hour in the evening. Yet, at the British Museum, the serious scholar cannot get books after 5 p.m. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is apparently the final arbiter on these matters of culture—and who more suitable?

Mr. Wyatt: Anyone.

Mr. Bell: A most unworthy interjection. When I listen to the almost baroque eloquence of my hon. Friend, I am always reminded of the arts. I think that it is most appropriate that he should be the person to decide. I hope that, as soon as the financial state of the country permits it, my hon. Friend will get round to the question of opening the Reading Room of the British Museum until 10 o'clock on every night in the week.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We have had an interesting and profitable debate which was opened in a speech that showed a great deal of research by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). We have had a number of contributions, all of them short, but all of them dealing quite plainly with the subject matter which we asked the Committee to discuss, except perhaps for some parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell).
The views of hon. Members opposite have varied over a wide range, from that of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling), who finds himself unable to support the Government, to that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who I gathered supported the Government with some reluctance because, in his opinion, they have not gone far enough.
Since the debate has been in progress I have had one piece of information which, I think, illustrates the kind of difficulty about which we are protesting. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has informed me since the debate began that during this afternoon

he has received two Norwegian visitors who went down to Greenwich to see the Queen's House and the National Maritime Museum and found that this was one of the days on which the Queen's House is closed.
Surely it would be desirable that a great maritime Ally of ours like Norway should find available for its citizens in this country the very fine examples of our maritime history linked with that of Scandinavia which exist in the National Maritime Museum. It is one of the museums which I myself visit as often as I can. I am pleased to say that, in spite of my greater age, I am a little more fit for walking round galleries than my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and can put up a record of rather more than half an hour.
I could not help thinking that when we got to the speech of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South this really was a fine example from the other side of the Committee of the historic dialogue between the Walrus and the Carpenter. The Government weep, they deeply sympathise, but, at the same time, they sort out those of the largest size. I suggest that the language we have heard from the other side of the Committee about the effect of £30,000 on the national balance sheet is an astounding example of exaggeration in politics applied to a degree that, in the minds of all sensible people, will defeat itself. We were told by the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) that this was one of the measures by which we should escape the certain ruin which confronts US.
Thirty thousand pounds—why I understand that there is to be a race run on an obscure racecourse in the next few days in which the prize is to be £27,000. The Government had better get a horse from the National Stud, and get it entered in their own name. After all, the Prime Minister is a member of the Jockey Club, and they have only to get the right jockey—the jockey is more important than the horse—and they ought to be able to get the greater part of this sum of money. Really, the language that they use about this as an economy is not worthy of the debating skill of the House of Commons.
We have had some very valuable speeches from this side of the Committee, and I was very interested to observe that,


once we get to the question of culture, beauty and education, the Tory Party has only one suggestion—"Charge a fee for it." We on this side of the Committee believe in the free access of all citizens to such repositories of beauty, culture and learning as this country possesses, and I should not like the Financial Secretary to think that any legislation to impose additional fees, or fees where they are not already charged, would be other than most severely opposed from this side of the Committee.
I want to deal in the main with the position at the British Museum, because that is an institution which will be celebrating its 200th anniversary next year, and which operates under an original Statute which incorporated it in 1753, the preamble to which ends with these words:
Therefore, to the end that the said Museum or Collection may be preserved and maintained, not only for the Inspection and Entertainment of the Learned and the Curious, but for the general Use and Benefit of the Publick… Be it enacted…
The history of the last 20 years or so shows an astounding development in the use of the museums of the country by the Government for governmental purposes. The research departments of the Natural History Section of the British Museum at South Kensington have carried out, and are carrying out, a number of experiments into tropical diseases and their causes, and into matters connected with Civil Defence, as I know from the questions that I submitted to them when I was Home Secretary. They have managed to get together—the British Museum and the Natural History Section of the British Museum; they are not two museums, but two buildings of one museum—they have got together a group of men of science and learning who have no match in any other country in the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) posed the essential question in this debate—the question that was not asked by the Government when they issued their circular. When we ask a museum to economise, and a museum of the calibre of the British Museum, do we want them to economise on the kind of people to whom I have just alluded, or are they to economise on the warders and cleaners, whose presence and whose work enable the museum to be kept open in a state fit

for the public to use and in a state in which the preservation of the treasures therein contained can be guaranteed?
That was the problem that confronted the trustees of the British Museum. I was a trustee of the British Museum when I was Home Secretary, and, when I ceased to be Home Secretary, for some reason best known to themselves, my late colleagues on the British Museum trustees asked that I should be continued, and, by a vote of the majority of the members—who normally sit on the Front Bench opposite—I was re-elected, but I want to make it quite clear that I was not responsible for what came about, because it was done during the interregnum.
I say quite frankly that, if I had been confronted with the question posed by the Financial Secretary in order to save £30,000 in all, I should have been bound to give the same answer as the trustees gave at that time. If they were to break up the skilled staff which they have in their employ, it would be a lasting disaster—I use the word advisedly—to the work which they undertake for the Government of the country in pursuance of many tasks which the Government ask them to undertake.
The long-term effects of the recent cuts will be the results of economy effected by non-recruitment. Five vacancies are not to be filled, and these are not on the cleaning staff, but on the technical and what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central called the civiatorial staff—it was a word I had not heard before, but I will adopt it. Failure to recruit apprentices to expert craftsmen will also affect the technical services. For example, in the Department of Oriental Antiquities, there is a gentleman who was trained in Japan and who is shortly to retire. He has a unique knowledge of his craft, and there is no other person who can replace him. Unless apprentices can be secured to serve under him, it will be necessary to send people to Japan to get the necessary knowledge and skill.
We on this side of the Committee regard this as a paltry and unworthy economy. The amount of money is so trivial as really to make the whole of this debate an example of exposing unnecessary and foolish cheeseparing rather


than a real exercise in the arts of Government by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We cannot accept any of the excuses offered by the Financial Secretary in the debate on 25th June. We very much resent the way in which he tried to shuffle off his responsibilities on to the shoulders of the people to whom, knowing the duties they had to discharge, he left no alternative as to the way that they should meet the wishes which he expressed.
We believe that the replacement of this £30,000 is amply justified. We do not take the view that even if it were met by charges that would be a satisfactory way of dealing with this particular issue. Unless the hon. Gentleman can say something better to us today than he said on 25th June, we shall have no alternative at the end of his speech but to ask the Committee to consider a reduction of the Vote.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether this great country, with these treasures which it possesses, is really acting worthily, not merely of its past but of its present, in denying, in a manner that is bound to be erratic, and therefore all the more annoying, access to those treasures not merely by our own people but by those who come to visit our shores.

6.31 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): On the whole, I agree with what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said about this having been a valuable debate. Indeed, with the conspicuous exception of the opening speech, it was one that was conducted with a very genuine concern for the merits of the matter. It was a very remarkable debate in that it brought the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) into active support, not only of the right hon. Member for South Shields, but, what is even more exciting, of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) who, the Committee will recall, is described in the current issue of "Tribune" as having adopted for himself' the rôle of the grand inquisitor of Bevanism. I am bound to say that I thought the gesture of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale a particularly agreeable one.

Mr. Bevan: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that if he would withdraw the £30,000 economy I should

become an enthusiastic supporter of his action, too?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether even at the price of £30,000 that would be a sound transaction.
Before coming to what seems to me to be the kernel of this debate, I want to deal with one or two of the points raised during the course of it. A number of hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), raised the question of charging in the museums. Several other hon. Members expressed rather differing views upon the subject. My hon. Friend asked me the specific question as to what was the legal position. I have made inquiries and the substance of it is this.
In the case of the British Museum and of the Natural History Museum, admission is free under their statutes, and therefore any question of charging would involve legislation. So far as the greater part of the other institutions are concerned, that is to say, the National Gallery, the Tate, the Wallace Collection, the National Portrait Gallery, the London Museum and the National Maritime Museum, there is legal authority to charge if it were thought fit so to do.
The Committee may be interested to know the history of this matter. Charges for admission to those institutions—generally of the order of 6d.—were, in fact, made on one or two days a week up to 1948. I understand that the object at that time was not the raising of funds, but the creating of less crowded conditions in which people who desired to make perhaps a prolonged study of the exhibits could do so in greater peace and quiet than on the more popular days.
The income in respect of all this came to no more than £3,500 a year. Therefore, quite apart from the merits of the matter, one of the complications in the way of charging is that unless the charge is fairly high—to which there are manifest objections—the cost of collecting it may make a large hole in the actual amount realised. Therefore, while I would not wish in principle necessarily to reject what my hon. Friend has said if a better solution cannot be found, I am bound to remind the Committee that the question of charging is a somewhat difficult one.
Indeed, there is a long history to it. As a matter of fact there was a recommendation in favour of charging dating


back to 1923, and, in fact, certain legislation affecting the British Museum and the Natural History Museum was introduced round about 1923 in order to enable charges to be made in those institutions, but that legislation, after passing some stages in the House, was withdrawn. So far as the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum are concerned, there is nothing in the Statute to say that they can or cannot charge. Consequently, the legal position is sufficiently obscure to prevent my hazarding an opinion upon it.
As far as the Public Record Office is concerned there are, so I understand, no legal difficulties in the way of charging. At this stage I do not want to say more than, as will appear from what I have to say later, that we are looking into all aspects of this matter, appreciating as we do the genuine concern to which the closing of certain parts of these institutions has given rise, and, while not excluding charges in principle, there are many difficulties which a prolonged investigation of the matter since 1923 has disclosed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes also asked whose was the legal right to close the premises. In general it is, I am told, within the authority of the trustees themselves to decide whether or not to close them. They have a legal authority so to do. As hon. Members are aware, the constitutional position of these institutions varies. Indeed, it is a very complex little part of our system of society, and I believe that in one case, if not in more, the authority of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education would be required for the closing of galleries. But, in general, I think the Committee can proceed on the basis that this is a matter which is within the authority of the trustees or comparable persons in charge of the museums.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) asked about the position of students. In general, it is still possible to make arrangements for students to visit those galleries which have been closed to public exhibition. I understand that prior notice has to be given, and I would not like to appear to commit the directors of the museums by a complete and dogmatic

answer on that point; but, in general, I am told that it is the intention of the museum authorities, notwithstanding that a gallery has been closed to the public, to make appropriate arrangements for students to attend.
I now come to one or two points that arose in the very remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Aston, who opened the debate. First of all, he took me to task for telling the House, as it then was, in the Adjournment debate the other night that the reduction in staff at the Public Record Office had been one of five. I have confirmed that that is the figure and that the figure from which the total had been reduced to the present level of 154 is 159 as stated by me, and not 166 as stated by him.
What misled him—and I understand how he came to be misled—was the Estimates provision for last year. But in point of fact the figure given in those Estimates, which is 166, was, indeed, the establishment figure, which was subsequently 177. Neither of those figures was attained and the cut therefore fell on the existing October total of 159. The cut was five and reduced that number to 154.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Financial Secretary now inquire from the Public Record Office, because although there were only 159 on 1st October, 1951, the number did reach a total of 165, which makes the effective cut one of 11?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman really cannot argue that. The cut was imposed on the October figure. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a difference between establishment and the authorised manpower ceiling. I am perfectly certain that he learned that, if nothing else, at the War Office. The cut for which this Government was responsible was five, reducing the total from 159 to 154.
I am not under-rating the difficulties of the Public Record Office. They are in a very special position, not least because they are not in substance a museum or gallery at all. They are a very important Department of State with great public responsibility, and the operation of their museum has always been an extremely marginal activity occupying at the most four people out of a staff in the neighbourhood of 150 to 160.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) is very interesting, because apparently, after investigation, the Public Record Office was authorised last year to go to a ceiling. It failed to reach that ceiling and yet the staff is being cut this year on a lower figure still. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile those two facts?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no difficulty at all in reconciling them. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is aware that throughout the public services there are authorised establishments or, if I may use Civil Service jargon, complements.

Mr. Bevan: This was after investigation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These complements do not give authority to the Departments concerned to raise the numbers to that figure of manpower at all. Within that figure, and sometimes very conspicuously below, are the authorised manpower totals of the moment. What we are concerned with here, not only with regard to the Public Record Office but also these other institutions, is not the question of what their authorised complements may be, but what the alteration in their actually authorised manpower ceiling was. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman apprehends the difference.

Mr. Bevan: No, and I am afraid my obscurity is shared with the Committee in general.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the right hon. Gentleman is really too modest, but that is one of his most endearing features. Perhaps it would be simpler if I put it in another way. The cuts concerned were cuts upon the actual authorised size of staff. That is applicable not only to all the institutions which we are discussing tonight, but to all the institutions over the whole machinery of government in which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, conspicuous reductions in staff have been effected.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: Suppose the authorised number is 150 and the institution happens to be short of five at the moment because it is going to recruit some staff next week; if the

hon. Gentleman cuts the staff by five, it is no cut.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the right hon. Gentleman does not quite apprehend the matter. The cut is upon the authorised ceiling for the moment. The fact that there happens to be a vacancy that week does not affect the calculation in any event, and the fact that that vacancy exists may not be known to Her Majesty's Treasury, wise as that body is. The hon. Member for Aston —in that delightful disregard for the finer forms of accuracy which is one of the more genial aspects of his style—said that as a result people could not go to Osterley Park.

Mr. Wyatt: I said that they could not go to Osterley Park and to the house as well.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman was half right, which is quite good. Unless he was under the delusion that people were denied access to the grounds of Osterley Park, I cannot see why he used the first half of his sentence.
He thought that the Duke of Wellington's dagger seemed in some curious way to be connected with these cuts. In the first place it was not a dagger but a sword, and in the second place the theft took place in 1948.
Then the hon. Member for Aston referred to Ham House which, as it adjoins my constituency, he will appreciate is a place in which I take very great interest. He seemed to imply that it was impossible to go there except in an organised party. In fact, on Saturdays. Bank Holidays and Sunday afternoons it is possible to go to Ham House in the ordinary way still. Organised parties can be taken round at fixed times announced in a leaflet which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has circulated. People are enabled to go round at 10.30 a.m., 2.30 p.m., 3.30 p.m. and so on. Therefore, I think the hon. Member for Aston was a little inclined to exaggerate.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman is accusing me of inaccuracy. As to the Duke of Wellington's dagger or sword—it does not matter very much what it is called—I said that the fact that it was stolen only underlines the fact that warders are very thin on the ground and


that if there had been more warders it is very likely that the sword would not have been stolen. I did not say that the theft was the result of these cuts. As to Ham House, I said that one had to wait until there was a party going round before one could go round.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member does not mind whether it is a dagger or a sword. Equally it is a very curious statement of his to say that because in 1948 whichever of his own right hon. Friends was responsible did not provide enough warders, that is an argument against my right hon. Friend's arrangements of a greatly superior nature.
If the Committee are to form a clear view of this matter, it is important to get the constitutional and administrative position of these institutions clear. A number of hon. Members have sought to suggest that in some sense I was passing the buck because I have declined to accept detailed administrative responsibility for the arrangements made by each of these museums for the regulation of its internal affairs. It is important that they should realise that each of these museums has its own governing body—in many cases trustees—who hold definite rights of their own under statute or Royal Charter and that there is not the some direct control by Ministers as there is in the case of an ordinary Government Department. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Member for South Shields, as trustee of the British Museum, would respond with enormous vigour if anybody started giving him orders as to the organisation of the museum. That is very proper.

Mr. Ede: But I should like to be consulted by the Treasury before I received a circular from them as to what would be the alternative ways, if any, in which I could carry out the intention of the circular.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will come to the question of consultation in a moment. At the moment I am on the point that although different Government Departments—in the case of some of the institutions it is the Treasury, in the case of some the Ministry of Education or the Department of the Secretary of State for Scotland—as sponsoring Departments are responsible for such matters as manpower and provisions of finance, the general internal organisation of museums and

galleries is solely within the control of the trustees and of directors who are responsible to the trustees. Therefore, even if my right hon. Friends wanted, they have not in fact got the power to say to any of these institutions, "You shall rearrange your affairs in this way." Nor, I think, would any hon. Member like to see that state of affairs brought into being.
I now come to the two main issues posed by this debate. The first is whether it is right to make a special exemption, from the point of view both of staff and of finance, in favour of these institutions, from the limitations which, as part of the Government's general policy, are being generally imposed both on Government Departments and on organisations supported from public funds. The question is whether a special and peculiar exemption from any limitation should be made in favour of these great institutions; and the second point is, assuming that some limitation is to be imposed, whether that limitation should be or can be so imposed as to limit as far as possible the interference with the public of their enjoyment of the wonderful properties which are housed in these institutions.
These are quite separate and distinct points, and I should like to deal with them separately. First of all, let us get quite clear what has been done. So far as finance is concerned, there is no cut in the accepted sense of the term. In last year's Estimates the total provision made for the staffing of the 14 museums and galleries and for the Public Record Office was £1,241,877. In this year's Estimates the total is £1,326,361—an increase in terms of money of some £85,000. Therefore, in this sphere, as in a good many others, there has not been an absolute cut in the sense of reducing the amount of money made available for the purpose, but a limitation of the increase which otherwise, at a time of rising prices, would have been required if the institutions were to carry on precisely as before.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how much of the rise to which he refers was really due to increases in salaries which obviously had to be paid any way?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As we are paying more to fewer people, I think the right hon. Gentleman should be able to appreciate that there has clearly been a rise in the amount that they have been paid.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: How much?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am coming to the numbers involved. It is purely a matter of calculation which the right hon. Gentleman himself can do. I have already indicated that at the moment we are spending on staff £85,000 more than was provided in the Estimates in the previous year.
On numbers it is the declared policy of the Government to secure reductions in the numbers employed in Government Departments and Government-supported institutions, and I think this policy has the general support of the majority of the Committee. It has already shown results. It has shown results in the last quarterly return—that is, for the first quarter of this year—with a net reduction of 4,400 in the staffs of Government Departments. The figures for the second quarter are not yet available but I hope they shortly will be.
Such reductions could quite clearly not be obtained without considerable heart-burnings and appreciable reductions in standards, but it is important—and I stress this—that it should be appreciated that the particular cuts raised on these Votes must be considered against the general background. Otherwise, it is pathetically easy to say, "You are not going to help the national economy by worrying about £30,000." That argument can be used against each and every economy that is made.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the charge of inefficiency that he made in the House on 25th June against the directors and keepers of these museums and galleries when he said:
I reject entirely the suggestion that a cut of this nature inevitably involves the closure of public gallery space"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2410.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not dealing with that aspect of the matter at all.

Mr. Wyatt: Why not?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not going to model my speech-making on that of the hon. Member, and at the moment I am dealing with another aspect of the matter. Really, the hon. Gentleman does not help to keep my speech within reasonable compass, when I am dealing with one aspect

of the matter, by plunging gaily on to a totally different one to which I shall come in due course.
I was reminding the Committee that it is one of the easiest of Parliamentary tricks to say, "You sacrifice so much by a reduction of this sort. That reduction by itself is so small. Why do you do it? " Yet that argument can be successfully adduced against almost every reduction either of staff or of expenditure which this or any Government makes, and I do not think the Committee will put much weight on that particular argument.
During the debate on the Adjournment to which reference has been made, I made it clear what we had done in terms of numbers. Let us have the total figures first. In respect of the 14 museums and galleries, there were in October of last year 2,165 people employed; those were non-industrials. The cuts in staff amounted to 84 non-industrials, reducing the total to 2,081. That figure is still 59 more than the 1939 total of 2,022.
I shall come later, when I deal with the issue of whether or not a reduction of facilities for the public is necessary, to a more detailed analysis of certain of these figures, but at the moment I am trying to deal with the argument which was raised on the Adjournment, and rather less emphatically today, that these bodies should be exempted specially from cuts because they have not shared in the post-war increases in which other departments have indulged. That seems to be one of the two arguments used in favour of making this very special exemption, and I think the figures which I have given show that that argument will not stand up, and that, in fact, the total for the museums and the galleries, even after the cuts have been made, is still above the pre-war figure.
The second and much better argument which was adduced related to their enormous artistic and cultural importance. I know the hon. Member for Aston does not think I am capable of appreciating that, and I am bound to say, in view of his own oratorical style, that I might be tempted to the schoolboy argument of tu quoque. In point of fact, the treasures housed in these institutions are, of course, priceless. The wonderful accumulation that we have here in London is a very important part of our national


life. No one would dispute their immense value in every sense of the term.
But it would be a mistake to assume, as seems to have been assumed in this debate, that the grant to museums is the only contribution to the arts and sciences, to the things of beauty and the things of the spirit, which are supported by governmental funds. One of the Votes put down for today is Class IV, Vote 10, "Grants for Science and the Arts," and hon. Members will see that there a wide variety of activities outside the museums and galleries which are supported from public funds.
Indeed, one can go further. Much of the money found for the University Grants Committee goes for research. Much of the expenditure of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education goes to things of the mind and the spirit. Therefore, when hon. Members seek to argue that, because of the admitted value of these museums and galleries, they must be given a special exemption from the limitations which are imposed upon other things of the mind and the spirit, I am bound to say that they seem to be putting quite a good case rather too high. It is a fact that one cannot isolate these matters and say, "These museums and galleries are the only contribution that the State makes to the arts and sciences and therefore they must be sacrosanct from cuts." One is bound to look at them against the background of the very great contributions that—under all Governments—the British Government make to support the arts and sciences.
It is also true that those who are directly concerned on the highest level have not asked specifically for such special exemption. As the Committee probably know, in this matter we have direct contact with the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, whose Chairman is Lord Harlech. These questions have been discussed with the Standing Commission and I am authorised to say that, while they are far from happy about the original cuts, they have no objection to the Committee being told that the Chairman said that he fully appreciated the Chancellor's difficulties in our present economic circumstances and was grateful both for his understanding

of their difficulties and for the decision that, notwithstanding present difficulties, authority was being given for additional staff of 19 to enable Apsley House to be opened in the immediate future.
Certainly there is no foundation for the extreme attitude adopted by certain hon. Members today that, because of their peculiar character no limitation should be applied to these institutions at all.

Mr. Bevan: Is this a statement by the Chairman, or was he speaking on behalf of the Commission as a whole?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have read the words with some care because I do not wish to misrepresent what was said by a noble Lord who is not here. The Chairman of the Standing Commission said that he had fully appreciated what had been done, and I think that all hon. Members, regardless of party, would feel nothing but the highest admiration for the noble Lord.

Mr. Wyatt: He is a Tory.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is why he is a cultured man.
From all that has been said in regard to the effect of these closures upon the tourist trade and foreigners visiting this country, one would have thought that all museums in all foreign countries were open all the time. In point of fact, the foreigner coming to London even now is much more likely to be surprised at the frequency of opening of our museums than anything else. If the hon. Member for Aston were to attempt to visit the Louvre on a Tuesday, he would find that he could not enter that superb gallery at any time of the day. The same is true of some other days of the week, and I understand that that applies to all the other Paris museums.
Nobody regards the French people as other than highly civilised and appreciative of artistic things, but it is the case that the current edition of Baedeker warns the tourist that even during the advertised hours of opening of the Louvre and other museums it may be that certain rooms will be found to be shut, owing to staff shortage. Even in Florence which, I suppose, has the finest collection of pictures in the world, one has been disappointed to find galleries which were not open at a particular time. Therefore,


I think it is a little disproportionate to suggest that foreigners would be horrified to find in London a state of affairs conspicuously better than is to be found in their own capitals.
I come now to my second point—whether it is an automatic, inevitable and necessary consequence of the action which we have been discussing that access should be restricted to the extent it has been. Let us get clear what has happened. The two places which have been absolutely closed are the Water-colour Room at the Tate Gallery and the museum of the Public Record Office. In the case of the British Museum, the Natural History Museum, the National Maritime Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum, there has been closing of certain rooms on certain days. There has been no change at all at other institutions, such as the London Museum, the National Gallery, the National Gallery of Scotland, the National Library of Scotland, the National Portrait Gallery and the Royal Scottish Museum. In the case of the Imperial War Museum, further gallery space has been opened since October.
In addition, as the Committee know, provision has been made and an increase in manpower authorised for the opening during the present week of the museum of Apsley House, with a staff of 19. It is clear from the figures that different institutions have adopted different policies where staff reductions have been effected.
Here I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Aston. It is far from saying that anyone is incompetent to point out that they have an option as to which policy to apply. One can agree or disagree with what somebody does, but the fact that one disagrees does not in any sense indicate that one believes there is incompetence. At least those of us who have perhaps not quite the intellectual self-confidence of the hon. Member for Aston are quite prepared to believe that intelligent people can differ from us, and I should not like what I said—that with extra thought it would be possible by certain adjustments to limit the effect of these closures—to be taken as a reflection on the actions of the eminent people who conduct the affairs of these museums.

Mr. Wyatt: What the hon. Gentleman said about the Public Record Office was:
Even then it has a staff of 154 compared with 127 before the war. Those figures speak for themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2410.]
He implied that there was no need to close this museum—as he did in the case of other museums. It may interest him to know that the directors and keepers of these establishments took his point in the same way as I did.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to hear of the contact he now discloses with the directors and keepers. The hon. Gentleman did not see fit to disclose this during the course of his previous speeches.

Mr. Wyatt: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can probably save the hon. Member from intervening. I said that I was interested that he had not mentioned it before. I am not criticising him for having sought knowledge where he could find it.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. This is rather an important point. The Keeper of the Public Record Office is an official and I have had no contact with him in the matter but other directors and keepers are persons who are directly entitled to speak to anybody they like.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I doubt whether that is a point of order. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that the matter is—as I said the other night—one within the control of these gentlemen, to consider how to apply the admittedly limited resources that they had. To my mind no reasonable person would assume that my comments indicated any disregard for the policies of the people concerned. They are free to decide whether the reduction should take effect in respect of all their staff—which may involve the closing of galleries—or on staff engaged on other duties, such as cataloguing. If they feel that the reduction should fall on their wardens, it is equally open to them to decide whether or not it is possible, by reorganising their staff, to secure those reductions without a reduction in the space open to the public.
Both the National Gallery and the London Museum have reduced their warden staff by two and they have maintained the same amount of gallery space open to the public. The Imperial War


Museum, which had a cut of one, increased its gallery space by 1,600 square feet. Another aspect which might interest the Committee is that in October, 1951, with 18 more wardens in posts, there were 277,000 square feet of gallery space less open to the public than in 1939, that is to say, one-sixth less. Last month, with eight fewer wardens in posts, there were 384,000 square feet less than in 1939. In 1939 one warden covered 2,350 square feet. He now covers 1,840 square feet. The hours of work for this grade are the same.
I quote those figures to show that it is perhaps not quite such a plain and straightforward matter as might have been thought from one or two of the speeches which we have heard and that, in fact, the organisation of these galleries is a complex and difficult matter upon which it is easy to jump to erroneous conclusions either way. I will say at once that I concede a great deal of what the right hon. Member for South Shields said about the increased burden upon some of these institutions in recent years. It is perfectly true, for example, that the British Museum has to cope with the never-ceasing flow of books and with a certain number of additional works of art.
The extreme example is undoubtedly the Public Record Office, which has to cope with the vast increase in paper which seems to flow from modern methods of government and which has also taken over, in its dump at Hayes, which I think has the attractive name of "Limbo," categories of documents which, previous to the war, were not thought to be in the Public Record Office phase of life at all. It is perfectly true, and it is fair that it should be brought out, that the responsibilities of some of these institutions are greater than before the war, and the Public Record Office is a particular case in point. It was no doubt for that reason that its establishment was raised to the figure of 177 a little time ago.
I have this suggestion to put to the Committee. When we asked for these manpower economies, we hoped that they could be made without seriously affecting the service given to the general public. We still hope that this may be so. We still hope that there may be ways and means of achieving these economies without depriving the public of facilities, and there is one particular way in which we can

help. The Treasury has an expert division —the Organisation and Methods Division —which I think I am entitled to say holds a very high reputation for its experience of modern staffing methods and administration, even outside the bounds of the public service. It has certainly received tributes from hon. Members and from other experts outside the House.
I am authorised to say that we should be happy to put the experience and advice of the Organisation and Methods Division at the service of any of the authorities concerned. We believe that in this way it may prove possible to achieve the savings concerned without detriment to public facilities. Its services are available to any of the organisations which we have been discussing, and, in fact, the Public Record Office have already been in touch with the division, and discussions are taking place to see whether the division can help the Public Record Office in their staffing problem.
We will make this service available to any of the museums and galleries to which reference has been made. It is terribly easy both to assert and to deny that certain adjustments to staff numbers make the closure of a gallery inevitable. It is easy to be dogmatic either way, but it is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility that detailed discussion on the spot between those directly concerned with running the institutions and those who have a very high reputation for their knowledge of modern staffing problems may reveal some ways of making less drastic adjustments.
I may say that members of the Organisation and Methods Division have in recent years been in touch with most of the galleries concerned so that their general systems are not unfamiliar ground to the division. I think hon. Members will agree that, as a means of resolving the unfortunate difficulties which have arisen, the first and most proper step is a detailed discussion between the museum authorities and the experts of the Treasury so as to resolve, aye or no, whether cuts of this order can be sustained without serious impact either on the museums' other activities or on the facilities open to the public.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman, as the responsible


Minister, now criticising the efficiency of those who run these institutions, or is he not?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has knowledge of the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury, should say that. He knows perfectly well that innumerable organisations have thought it proper to ask the division to help them with advice on their staffing problems. None of those organisations did so because it was, or thought it was, inefficient; they did so because in this imperfect world we can all perfect ourselves even further—even the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
It cuts at the root of the good work which the Organisation and Methods Division does, on a far wider scale than this, to suggest that calling them in and having discussions indicates any admission or assertion by anybody that the people with whom they are discussing the matter are inefficient. It means only this —that those concerned feel that it is possible that they might profit from expert advice.
I would say this in all sincerity to the Committee. We get no further by saying "Aye" or "no"; "They cannot carry these cuts without closing the galleries," or "They can carry these cuts without closing the galleries." We get no further by doing that. It is a matter which can be resolved only by detailed and expert investigation freely and willingly undertaken on the spot. That is surely the practical approach. I should hate it to be thought that any of the innumberable Departments of State and others which the Organisation and Methods Division have investigated during the last few years either thought they were inefficient or, in fact, were inefficient; and it would be terribly damaging to the good work which this body does to allow such a suggestion as that to go about.

Mr. Jay: Of course, I am not questioning the wisdom of the Organisation and Methods Division looking into this problem. What I am questioning is the propriety of the hon. Gentleman, as the responsible Minister, criticising in public the efficiency of these Departments. If he is not making such criticism of these Departments will he now clearly say that he withdraws?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I must try again with the right hon. Gentleman. I have not said today, nor on any occasion, that these Departments are inefficient. I have said that they had difficult problems to solve, and I have indicated that on certain aspects of their solution I personally took a somewhat different view. But even the right hon. Member for Battersea, North cannot twist that into a suggestion that I think they are incompetent, and I say here and now that I have no such belief, that in fact it is not so and that it has never been said to be so from this Bench; and that, as far as I know, it has never been suggested by anybody except the right hon. Gentleman.
I am coming to perhaps an important point which follows logically from what I have just said. If, after these discussions have taken place, in the case of any particular institution, between its authorities and the O. and M. Division of the Treasury, it is established as a matter of fact that, on the staff figures as at present authorised, an appreciable reduction of facilities to the public is unavoidable, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to reconsider the position as to the numbers revealed as a result of that discussion.
It has been a source of great regret to the Government that the public should be deprived of certain facilities. Every effort must be made—and the course I have indicated we are taking is one of such efforts —to see whether any readjustment can be made to improve the position, and if, after those efforts have been made, it really appears that in any particular case closure on the present figures is unavoidable, my right hon. Friend, as I have said, will look at the figures et that particular institution again. I hope that that will make it clear to the Committee that we feel as strongly as any hon. Member that it is desirable, if it is at all possible, to retain the splendid museum facilities of this English capital—

Hon. Members: British capital.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the Scottish capital?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —the museum facilities, I am reminded, with which we are also concerned, of Edinburgh and of Wales. We feel just as strongly as any hon. Member that it is highly desirable that as many should be kept open as is reasonably practicable in the very difficult


circumstances of this time. We have, as I have said, applied limitations to the increases in these as we have applied them to many admirable institutions throughout the realm, but, in view of the circumstances, in view also of the fact that Coronation year will be next year, we are anxious that facilities should not be restricted if that can be avoided. Therefore, the course we propse to the Committee is this—detailed examination and consideration on the spot, institution by institution; and if it can really be shown that closure is on the present figures un-

avoidable, then, as I have said, my right hon. Friend will reconsider those figures.

Hon. Members: Muddle.

Mr. Ede: It is quite clear from the closing half-hour of the hon. Gentleman's speech, while the Whips have been at work on the telephone, that really what he has announced now ought to have been done six months ago, and, therefore, I beg to move,
That Item Class 1, Vote 4, Subhead A.1 (Salaries &amp;c.) be reduced by £5.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 220.

Division No. 207.]
AYES
[7.24 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paton, J.


Albu, A. H.
Grey, C. F.
Pearson, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Peart, T. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Poole, C. C.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Grimond, J.
Popplewell, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Porter, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W.
Proctor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Hargreaves, A.
Rankin, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Reeves, J.


Bence, C. R.
Hastings, S.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Hayman, F. H.
Rhodes, H.


Beswick, F.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holman, P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Board man, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Short, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Slater, J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Snow, J. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Chapman, W. D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kinley, J.
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Clunie, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cocks, F. S.
Lewis, Arthur
Swingler, S. T.


Coldrick, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Collick, P. H.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Cove, W. G.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McGhee, H. G.
Thorneyoroft, Harry (Clayton)


Crosland, C. A. R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Tomney, F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McLeavy, F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Viant, S. P.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wallace, H. W.


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Delargy, H. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Dodds, N. N.
Manuel, A. C.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
West, D. G.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mellish, R. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wigg, George


Edelman, M.
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Williams, Rev. Llewlyn (Abertillery)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Field, W. J.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Fienburgh. W.
Murray, J. D.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Foot, M. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wyatt, W. L.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Padley, W. E.
Yates, V. F.


Gibson, C. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Glanville, James
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Parker, J.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Royle.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Gough, C. F. H.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Gower, H. R.
Partridge, E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Arbuthnot, John
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Baker, P. A. D.
Harvie-Wall, Sir George
Pitman, I. J.


Baldock, Ll.-Cmdr. J. M.
Hay, John
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Banks, Col. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Barber, Anthony
Heath, Edward
Profumo, J. D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hollis, M. C.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hope, Lord John
Robertson, Sir David


Birch, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bishop, F. P.
Horobin, I. M.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Black, C. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon, Florence
Roper, Sir Harold


Boothby, R. J. G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Russell, R. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. O.


Braine, B. R.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Kaberry, D.
Scott, R. Donald


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, William


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Lambton, Viscount
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Buliard, D. G.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Soames, Capt. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Speir, R. M.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Linstead, H. N.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Gary, Sir Robert
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Channon, H.
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Stevens, G. P.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Storey, S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Cole, Norman
McAdden, S. J.
Studholme, H. G.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Summers, G. S.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Maclean, Fitzroy
Teeling, W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crouch, R. F.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Manningham-Butler, Sir R. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Marples, A. E.
Tilney, John


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Davidson, Viscountess
Maude, Angus
Turner, H. F. L.


Deedes, W. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Turton, R. H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Mellor, Sir John
Vosper, D. F.


Conner, P. W.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Drayson, G. B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Molt-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Erroll, F. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Finlay, Graeme
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Watkinson, H. A.


Fisher, Nigel
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wellwood, W.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Fort, R.
Nutting, Anthony
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Oakshott, H. D.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Odey, G. W.
Wills, G.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
O'Neill, Rt. Won. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Godber, J. B.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne.

Original Question again proposed.


Motion, by leave, withdrawn

NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO COUNTRYSIDE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with National Parks and Access to the Countryside for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:

Civil Estimates, 1952–53



£


Class I, Vote 26, Scottish Home Department
10


Class V, Vote 1, Ministry of Housing and Local Government
10


Total
£20

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: After the speech of the Financial Secretary I confess that we have little confidence in securing any concessions in respect of the National Parks from the united front of vandals and Philistines who are temporarily in possession of the Treasury Bench. Nevertheless, we thought it was desirable to give the Committee an opportunity of further discussing this subject for this reason.
A week ago last Tuesday my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) called attention to the administration of the National Parks on the Adjournment Motion. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government replied, he complained that no time had been left to him to do justice to the Government's case. One would have thought that the shorter the time he had to speak the more careful he would be to concentrate upon the essentials of the case and to cut out the frills and other unnecessary matter. Instead of that, the Parliamentary Secretary made little attempt to answer the points which had been put to him and dealt only partially with one of the points that had been made.
In that debate my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling) asked the Parliamentary Secretary for four specific assurances, but in reply the Parliamentary Secretary gave not one of those assurances, nor so far as I recollect from reading the debate, even referred to them. Instead, he replied to points which had not been made in the debate; he gave us a

bowdlerised version of what the Hobhouse Committee had recommended, complained of the behaviour of my hon. Friend as being violent, and referred somewhat disparagingly to his hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham as being what he called an "amenity fan."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): No.

Mr. Greenwood: It certainly read as being somewhat disparaging in the context in which it appeared. If he is taking perhaps a more placatory line tonight I shall be the first to welcome that change of heart. Basically, his reply on that occasion was most unsatisfactory. What the reason for it was—whether it was disregard of the House, or whether it was a lack of grasp of importance of the administrative machine with which he was dealing—it is impossible for us to tell. Certainly we hope for better treatment if he replies tonight, or if his right hon. Friend the Minister himself replies to the debate.
The first point on which I think the Committee and the country need clarification is the extent to which the Minister believes the National Parks shall be national parks, and the extent to which he believes they shall be local. At this stage all of us would want to emphasise that from the time the Hobhouse Report was considered in the House nobody wished to attempt in any way to ride roughshod over the various local interests. Those of us however who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill hoped that the limit had been reached in the concessions made to local interests when that Measure was before the House. The National Parks Commission emerged from our discussions with its powers a good deal attenuated, and the national representatives on the parks committees had been reduced from a half to one-third.
I recall those facts because neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary was a member of that Standing Committee. Indeed, so far as my researches go, neither of them favoured the House with their views on the National Parks from the time that Bill was first introduced to the time that they took over their present responsibilities. It may be that they bring fresh minds to bear upon the problem, but they must forgive us if we


sometimes seek to ensure that they do not overlook the background to it.
By October, 1951, substantial progress had been made in respect of three of the National Parks—the Peak District, the Lake District and Snowdonia. In the case of the Peak District, all the local authorities, with the exception of Sheffield, were originally strongly opposed to the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) that the park should be under the control of a joint planning board. My right hon. Friend insisted that such a joint planning board should be established, and made the further condition that it should have its own planning officer and adequate financial resources.
In view of the opposition of the local authorities only a year ago, it is interesting to see what happened when the Peak Park Planning Board held its first annual meeting at Bakewell on Tuesday of last week, because on that occasion it was quite clear that the county councils concerned had completely changed their approach to the problem. Sir Bertram Wilson, who was representing the West Riding County Council, said, according to the "Manchester Guardian," that it was time they got down to a proper appreciation of the compelling idea of a national park, and of the difference between it and ordinary county planning. When Mr. Monkhouse, who is one of the national representatives on that board, proposed the re-election of Alderman Charles White—whom many of us remember with pleasure as a Member of the House—as chairman of the board, Alderman White spoke in these terms:
Nobody fought the formation of this Board more than I did, because I honestly believed that an advisory committee would have functioned better.
He went on to say that he had now changed his mind, and expressed his appreciation of the impartial outlook of the board's members in comparing industry and amenities. It is quite clear, therefore, that some local authorities, powerful county councils, which began with serious misgivings about this joint planning board, have been completely won over by the efficacy of this method of administration.
In the case of the Lake District National Park, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland insisted on a joint planning board, but, unfortunately,

he did not make any proviso about the necessary staff or the budget which was to be spent. The result is they had no single planning officer, and they have a budget of only £7,500 a year, which seriously restricts the amount of work they can undertake.
In the case of Snowdonia, once again, in spite of considerable objection from the three county councils involved, my right hon. Friend insisted upon the formation of a joint planning board. That is where the matter rested when the General Election came along in October last year. In the course of the Election, I think that the hearts of hundreds of thousands of people, and of the amenities societies, must have been raised by the "Campaign Guide" which was published by the Conservative and Unionist Central Office. On page 283, in talking of the National Parks Act, it said:
The Conservatives sought to secure greater protection for agriculture and to strengthen the powers of the National Parks Commission. The organisation set out in the Bill was criticised because it sets up a relatively weak National Parks Commission and leaves all real power in the hands of the local planning authorities.
On the following page, it went on to say:
The attempt of Mr. Dalton … to undo the ill effects of the shortcomings of the Act against which Conservatives had warned the country are of interest. In October, 1950, Mr. Dalton insisted on the establishment of a joint board instead of a joint committee for the Peak National Park… He was in fact following the line urged on his predecessor by the Conservative Opposition in Parliament—that of getting effective administration of the National Parks by effective national Park Authorities.
Reading that, one can only come to the conclusion that all the criticisms and constructive suggestions about the National Parks Bill had come from Conservative Members of the Standing Committee and of the House at that time. One would not suppose—and I am sure that the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) would be the first to admit this —from the "Campaign Guide" that the Committee had also consisted of Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) and Mr. H. D. Hughes, as well as hon. Members like the hon. Members for The High Peak and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling).
Whatever had happened in the past, it was clear from the "Campaign Guide" that there were great hopes for the future


from the Conservative Party so far as the National Parks were concerned. One could only suppose that by amending legislation or by strong central administrative action the Minister was going to clear up such mistakes as the Labour Government may have perpetrated. I pictured the right hon. Gentleman elbowing out of the way his importunate colleagues who wanted to de-centralise steel and transport in order to get first to the Dispatch Box to remedy the weakness of the National Parks Act. The hopes that we formed at the time that guide was issued have unfortunately been dashed. Not merely have we had no legislation from the right hon. Gentleman, but he appears to have gone out of his way so far as administrative action is concerned to go slow, to weaken the administrative machinery the Act provided and, even in one case, to flout the provisions of the Act.
I do not know what is the reason for the change of attitude on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It may be that he has not been quite aware of everything that has been happening. We know from the Parliamentary Secretary, whose tact and discretion are equalled only by those of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, that the Minister is a very busy man and has to rely on such bodies as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England for information as to what is happening. That seemed to me a disparaging remark to make about one's Minister, but that remark was widely attributed to the Parliamentary Secretary in the Press after he made his speech at Hathersage about three weeks ago.
If that is how the Minister of Housing and Local Government proceeds, no wonder the word "planning" is left out of his title. Whatever the reason for the Minister's attitude, I believe that the "Manchester Guardian" was right in stating:
The Ministerial assurances, the principles, and, finally, the excepted provisions of the Act itself have one by one been cast aside.
In illustration of that point of view, I want to take, as examples, two of the National Parks. The first that I want to touch upon is Snowdonia, which the Parliamentary Secretary was visiting, I think, only yesterday. In June, 1951, after he had received a deputation from the county

councils the then Minister wrote to the Merioneth County Council saying that it appeared to him there could be no doubt that a joint board would be necessary. After the General Election, the county councils had another shot, and sent a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman opposite pleading for a joint advisory committee instead of a joint board. I understand from the Press that they based their argument on the low rateable value of the area, on the administrative efficiency of the councils concerned, on the large areas of two of the county councils which will be absorbed into the Park, and, finally, upon what they called "the wholly Welsh character of the area."
It seems to me that only the last argument could possibly constitute one of the special circumstances envisaged in the Section 8 (2) of the Act, in so far as it is a situation not found in various counties in other parks. It is not easy to see, Mr. Hopkin Morris—and I hope that you will listen benificently to what I have to say on this point—how the Welsh character, operating through a joint committee, makes more obviously for efficient administration than it does when working through a joint board. But that would be the only argument which would justify the Minister in the action he has taken.
On 25th April, the right hon. Gentleman replying to the county councils affected—the Counties of Caernarvon, Denbigh and Merioneth—used wording which must be unique in a letter sent out by a Minister of the Crown.
The Minister cannot doubt that the National Parks Commission are right in believing that a National Park ought to be administered by one authority; and that, therefore, a joint board would be likely to give better results than a system which would leave responsibility for administration of the Acts of 1947 and 1949 in the hands of the three county councils aided by a joint advisory committee.
From this point he went on to say that although that was his judgment, nevertheless, he proposed to set up for an experimental period a joint advisory committee, which he did not think could possibly work as well as a joint board.
In Section 8 of the Act, before the Minister can direct a joint board shall be set up, he must satisfy himself that such a course is necessary for securing efficient administration. He must be satisfied, not


that the county councils will do equally as well, but that it is they who must be appointed if efficient administration is to be secured. In other words, he must be satisfied that the joint board will not secure efficiency and that the county councils will.
It is difficult to see how he can prove any of these contentions after what he said in his letter to the county councils on 25th April. It is not surprising in the circumstances that "Country Life" should have suggested that the Minister's mind may not have been very clear on this issue; nor is it surprising that the "Manchester Guardian" in a leading article should have made this comment:
No court would sustain the legality of his offer to leave the planning of Snowdonia to the three county councils concerned, assisted by an advisory committee, in the face of his own explicit admission that a joint board would be likely to give better results.'
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal seriously with this point which is causing great perturbation among the various amenity societies, and certainly, as we are at present advised, the actions he has taken are not consistent with the provisions of the Act.
The second National Park with which I wish to deal is the Dartmoor National Park. In an Adjournment debate in this House on 6th December last the Parliamentary Secretary suggested to us that, in the case of these parks, the national interest is safeguarded by the fact that one-third of the membership of the board is appointed by the Minister himself. One certainly hoped that that would be the case, but I think we are now entitled to have legitimate doubts upon that score.
The Dartmoor National Park comes entirely in the one County of Devon, and therefore the Devonshire County Council is in a particularly strong position in it. In the first place, it has two-thirds of the members of the park committee and, secondly, because it is the planning authority of the area, it can veto any of the decisions which the Dartmoor National Parks Committee takes, so that the power of the one-third of national representatives is already severely limited.
Then, if the Press is to be believed, it is further limited by the fact that the Minister consulted the county council on the question of who should be appointed,

and the Devon County Council asked for a list of names in excess of the number of vacancies so that it could select those who were the most acceptable. The Minister fell for that suggestion in spite of the very specific assurance that Lord Silkin, when he was Minister, gave to the hon. Member for The High Peak on the Standing Committee, where he said that it never occurred to him that it would be possible to submit more names than there were vacancies and that it was certainly not his intention to do so. On this occasion in the case of the Dartmoor National Park eight names were submitted and the county council apparently chose the six which it found most acceptable. It is perhaps not surprising that one of them was that of the Lord Warden of the Stannaries of the Duchy of Cornwall who on 18th October, 1949, in another place urged the Government to postpone the part of the Bill dealing with National Parks and access land.
There is no wonder that the public are beginning to be a little afraid that there may be worse to follow. The Parliamentary Secretary ignored the request which my hon. Friend made to him the other night that he should give the House an assurance that the Government are determined to push ahead with the National Parks policy which was started with the passing of the National Parks Act. He made no reply whatever to that request; there was no reference to it in the speech which he made.
There has been a surprisingly long silence in the case of the North Yorkshire Moors, although I believe the inquiry is starting tomorrow. We have not heard about the Yorkshire Dales National Park for a very long time now. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is happening to these National Parks of which we have heard so little for so long a time. When he comes to setting up these National Parks committees, are the unfortunate examples of Snowdonia and Dartmoor to be followed in their case as well? It will be extremely difficult for the right hon. Gentleman in future to resist demands from other county councils that they should be treated in the same way as the county councils in the Snowdonia area.
I do not think we have any reason either to be very happy about the pro-


gress which is being made about the long distance footpaths. In his speech at Hathersage—the Parliamentary Secretary must be getting tired of being reminded of it—the hon. Gentleman referred to the Pennine Way and said that he could not give a date for the opening. Then he went on to give a few figures about the progress that was being made. He told his hearers that two of the 22 local authorities concerned had made the necessary public path agreements, that 12 of the 22, covering 25 miles of the Way, were getting on with the job, and that seven of them, covering 30 miles of the route, had not given the information which was asked for. That makes details for 21 out of 22 local authorities. What has happened to the remaining local authority? One does not know, but perhaps it has gone the way of the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
Has the Minister, seriously, no timetable for when these footpaths are to be created. Has he not urged upon the local authorities concerned the importance of pushing ahead with the work? What has happened to the survey of the coastal path from Somerset to Dorset? What progress has there been with that? There is also the Thames riverside footpath. On 1st July my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked the Minister what progress was being made with the Thames riverside footpath, and the Parliamentary Secretary gave a somewhat disappointing reply. He said:
To repair and complete the Thames riverside walk would, my right hon. Friend is afraid, cost a lot of money. An estimate has been got out and the National Parks Commission are, he understands, considering this; but it may be that they will conclude that action must he deferred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 25.]
I hope the Minister will tell us tonight whether that was a hint to the National Parks Commission that they would not be allowed in existing circumstances to go ahead with the work, or whether it is his desire that they should do that work even at the expense of other projects. It is important that we should realise that the delaying of projects of this kind is the worst type of improvidence and that longer delay will mean greater expense in the long run.
There are three points that I wish to make on the question of ordinary public

footpaths before I conclude. I am informed by the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society that difficulties are arising in respect of the provision of the Act dealing with public footpaths. I am told, for example, that some parish councils are omitting from their surveys paths which are little used. But the survey should be a factual survey and not merely one of the footpaths which the parish councils think it is necessary to preserve.
I understand, too, that farmers are not complying with Section 56 of the Act which gives them the opportunity of ploughing up footpaths on condition that they replace them when it is possible to do so. I am told that farmers are not giving the necessary notification to the highway authorities and that they are not restoring the footpaths afterwards. Further, I understand that the Minister is issuing a circular through the county agricultural executive committees and the National Farmers' Union, but I should like the Minister to tell us what action he contemplates taking if there is no improvement as a result of this circular.
My last point on footpaths deals with the views which the Parliamentary Secretary expressed in the Adjournment debate on 6th December last year when hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Twickenham, had complained that highway authorities were refusing to go ahead with the repairing of footpaths until the survey was completed. It was argued at the time that that was a wrong interpretation of the responsibilities of the highway authority and the Parliamentary Secretary said that he thought that we should have to wait until December, 1952, until the survey had been completed. In my view, that was a somewhat casual misinterpretation of the law.
We have never had any correction from the right hon. Gentleman and have never had any apology from him for having mislead the House on that occasion, although a publication of his own Ministry had said earlier in the same year, in Command Paper 8204, that it was for the highway authority to assume responsibility for the maintenance of paths without waiting for the completion of the survey. When the hon. Member for Twickenham put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary the other night it would have been a little more gracious if


the Parliamentary Secretary had admitted that his hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham had been right on that occasion.
Since the Government took office nothing has happened to convince us that they are determined to push on as quickly as they can with this great work. Here really was a great scheme designed to preserve the amenities of the countryside and to make it possible for millions of our citizens to enjoy them. The Act was passed with the support of all parties, and I always regarded it as being in some measure an earnest of our confidence in our own future.
It would be a tragedy if the public today got the impression that the Government was going slow and soft pedalling on the development of these National Park schemes, but I am afraid that the Government are giving that impression at the present time, partly through the speeches which the Parliamentary Secretary has made, and partly by reason of the fact that the Minister himself has weakened the scheme by his capitulation to the county councils in the case of North Wales, because he has gone slow on the whole project, and has taken action in the case of the Snowdonia Park of doubtful legality. The right hon. Gentleman will need something more than epigrams and blandishments to convince us that he is going ahead with this programme with the zeal and energy which the House anticipated when the Measure was passed.

8.0 p.m.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I am one of those who was on the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill before it became an Act, and I took a considerable interest in it. I am also a member of a county council and a planning authority, and I am interested in the subject. The county council of which I am a member should be looked on with favour by those interested in National Parks because a long time ago under the 1932 Act they reserved from development, by buying at a cost £28,000, a very large area of the South Downs when there was no other way of doing it.
I feel that some of the criticisims advanced by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) are a little hard on county councils. There is no doubt that he will get answers to many

of his questions from my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, but I should like to make a few comments upon them.
Let me assure the Committee that I have no intention of repeating what was said in Standing Committee, because, unfortunately, I went away for the weekend and left all my papers behind. However, I remember some of the debates that we had in Standing Committee, including one on the control of National Parks and the amount of delegation to National Parks boards or, alternatively, control under a local planning authority with the help of an advisory committee.
I think it will always be remembered that I took the line that the latter course would be necessary in quite a number of cases, and for this reason. It is not easy to get the right people for these bodies, the people who really are interested in National Parks and the principle of National Parks and at the same time of the right background so that they can understand the point of view both of the townspeople who want to enjoy them and of the countryman who is bound up to a point to have to sacrifice something for them.
Secondly, when such a body is found, the members have to be got together. In certain areas that is not very easy. Supposing, for example, a South Down National Parks Board were set up, it would cover an area 80 miles long by about five or six miles broad. If it were agreed even to meet in the middle, it would mean that some member whould have to go some 40 miles to attend a meeting, and that is not very easy for many people. So there are two difficulties. First, the members have to be found and then they have to be brought to the place of meeting.
I imagine that in some of the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Rossendale, like the Lake District and Snowdonia, it was felt that to try to get representatives from all over the district would involve a certain amount of difficulty, for to get them from one side of the mountains to the other would entail a tremendous amount of travelling. That may be one of the reasons for the present decision. Be that as it may. I feel that, in spite of the principle of National Parks boards, there will always be an argument in favour of the planning authority taking a leading part, because it knows the area


and has officials and members who are familiar with the locality. I would add that apparently some county councils accept the principle of joint planning boards. It is probably largely a matter of the nature of the locality. In some areas it is possible; in some it is not.
I come now to the question of footpaths. Certain difficulties arise here, and, whether I am right or wrong, I believe that today footpaths are not being used as much as they were in the past. In my own district I remember many footpaths that used to be hard trodden, clear tracks, but today they are completely grown over. People do not use them as much, which is probably the result of petrol. It is much less trouble to go three miles round on a motorcycle or go in someone's car than to walk across the country.
Footpaths are not being used and that adds to the difficulties of parish councils, particularly when they have to argue with farmers who are inconvenienced by restoring paths across arable fields. The farmer knows quite well that the path will only be used one or twice in the summer and then as an amenity. However, that obviously must be watched. It is a legal obligation on the farmer to restore the path and it should be obeyed.
In my county the highway authority is taking responsibility for maintenance. In my own parish, for example, a footpath is being made up by the county council, but here again, I think the difficulties of the road authorities should be borne in mind. Grants to all road authorities have been very much cut down, with the result that they are having great difficulty in keeping their roads in repair, while improvements for which there is great pressure, particularly from those trying to improve the safety of our roads, cannot be met.
Concentration has to be almost entirely on maintaining the surface, which, of course, is something which makes for safety, and to divert funds for taking over a completely new branch of their work—to maintain and repair footpaths—would at the moment be a very onerous burden. I am sure they will undertake it as soon as they are able to do so, but at the moment there are considerable difficulties about taking on new work.
There is one other thing I should like to mention and I hope it will receive attention. When the map is being made, not only footpaths but bridle paths should be carefully marked and distinguished. It is so long now since bridle paths were used for transport purposes in a good many districts that it has been forgotten that some rights of way are bridle paths, but the increased interest in recent years in horse riding and the dangerous state of traffic on the roads increases the demand for the preservation of these bridle paths.
I know that in some areas there has been criticism of the delay in getting out these maps, but it is not really a very easy task to fulfil satisfactorily. There is an obligation under the Act that it should be fulfilled and that not only should existing paths be marked, but where there is a suspicion that there is a footpath the case should be gone into. To meet the complaints made by the hon. Member for Rossendale that all cases have not been considered, adequate time must be taken. People in the country have their time very much occupied. When they have nothing else to do they have their own gardens to look after. They have many calls on their time, but those who know the facts alone can give the right information.
The usual starting place should be on the parish council basis. Even on that basis it is no use marking maps without coming to some agreement with the next parish about what is to happen at the boundaries. All round the boundaries there is a good deal of work to do. At the rural district council stage there would be a similar piecing together before the matter went to the next stage. Many people must be consulted and given an opportunity of saying whether or not what has been put on the map is really right, or whether some useful path has not been included. All the evidence must be carefully put forward, or sooner or later the whole process will be hung up by inquiries, and in the long run it will take much more time. It is worth while going slowly and steadily, keeping going all the time.
The other matter which the hon. Member for Rossendale mentioned was the Thames riverside path. This is not a district which I know as well as I did, but I agree that it is a most desirable thing that, at first blush, does not seem


difficult an accomplishment. The towpath which now exists along the greater part of the Thames goes up into the higher reaches, and its conversion into a footpath is surely a possibility. The rights of way in the towpath come under numerous navigation authorities, but I should imagine that the conversion would not be very difficult.
I apologise for the somewhat inconsequent nature of these few remarks. Until I came into the Chamber and understood the tenor of the debate, I had no intention of intervening for more than a few moments, because of not having my papers over the weekend.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am sorry to have to disagree, I think for the first time in my political life, with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). I am grateful to him for having couched what he did say in a moderate tone, although he argued incisively as usual. It was a welcome change from the fanaticism with which the amenity fans usually advance their case and which does far more harm than the action of any Ministry or county council. I hope, that by the end of my few remarks my hon. Friend may come a little nearer to me as to what is the best way of achieving a National Park in Snowdonia.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary in his place. He was in my constituency over the weekend, and with a party of young Conservatives he climbed to the top of Snowdon. A constituent of mine who lives practically on the top of Snowdon said that the effort was most praiseworthy but that he regrets that that is the nearest that the Parliamentary Secretary or his party will ever get to Heaven. Still, I am glad he came, because we welcome him as a keen and intrepid climber, and we are always glad to see him.
I have intervened in the debate because, as I have suggested, the constituency which I have the honour to represent here will make a very considerable territorial contribution to the Snowdonia National Park, and I want it to make a willing and enthusiastic contribution. For the past 18 months or so I have held the view that the best way to mobilise the good will and participation of the people of that area is to try out faithfully the

method of the joint advisory committee. Unlike hon. Members who have already spoken, I regard Snowdon as my native heath. We do not want it to become another Hampstead Heath. It might very well become that unless from the start we have the immediate and wholehearted support and participation of the people who live there and of those who represent it. I believe that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary showed that they appreciated that point when we met them recently at the Ministry. I might tell them that there is on our side a good deal of appreciation of the view which they took.
I would remind the Committee of the terms of the 1949 Act. They are perfectly clear. Section 8 (2) says—I will not quote it—that where a National Park lies partly in different counties a joint board shall be set up. There is, however, a proviso enabling the Minister to consult the local authorities concerned and to establish a joint advisory committee if there are special circumstances. That was the procedure followed in this case, and I fail to see in what instance the action of the Minister runs counter to that procedure in any particular. I have no doubt that he will be able to defend himself.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale that there were no special circumstances to justify our substituting for the method of the joint board the method of the joint advisory committee. Well, there are. Three special circumstances in Snowdonia fully justify our trying out, at least, the method of the joint advisory committee. What the Minister has agreed to in response to very strong representations from those most immediately concerned is the joint advisory committee method for three years. I do not see why there should be objection to trying out that method. If it is found at the end of three years to be insufficient for our purpose, then a joint board may well be the method to be permanently established. I would like briefly to mention the three special circumstances which makes Snowdonia appropriate for the joint advisory committee method.
There is first the financial point. A joint board would cost much more than a joint advisory committee. The geographical situation of the park is such that, if a joint board were set up, the


county planning executives would still have to be maintained at their present strength. It would cost just as much in men and money for the participating counties to carry on with their planning work. The county planning officers would have to travel through the National Park areas to the perimeter, which would still remain under their control. So it would not save a penny. Indeed, it is estimated that the joint board would cost an extra £13,000 per annum.
The total sum spent by the three counties concerned—Caernarvon, Denbigh and Merioneth—is £43,000 per annum. On top of that there would be the £13,000 extra, but a joint committee would cost only £3,000 extra. These are small sums unless they are viewed against the background of the kind of authority who will have to find part at least of those extra sums.
Let us compare the Snowdonian counties with the counties contributing to the Peak National Park. The Peak counties have a penny rate producing £93,000. The three Snowdonian counties produce only £6,000 for a penny rate, so these comparatively small sums would fall heavily in this case, and that is a special financial circumstance.
The second point is that in this National Park area administration would be seriously divided by using the instrument of a joint board. Section 93 of the Act says that the county council will still make orders restricting traffic in National Park roads. Part IV of the Act says that county councils will still be responsible for survey and maintenance and footpaths in National Park areas, and under Section 21 they have the power to establish nature reservations.
Now a joint board would have no power over these functions, but the joint advisory committee would see that they fitted perfectly into a National Park policy. The reason why that is a special circumstance in Snowdonia is the following. Here we have three local authorities which are well used to working together on all these matters. The reason why they work so well together is that basically, and particularly in the economic sense, they have the same interest. They depend for their livelihood on tourism and agriculture and from this fact two things flow: it is inevitable and organic that they should co-operate so well with each

other and, secondly, they have a positive vested interest in promoting the formation of a proper National Park. A National Park, in fact, is their livelihood to a very large extent.
A National Park in Snowdonia is not something which will be established by an outside body which knows more about it than the people living there. A National Park is only possible in Snowdonia through and by the people living there, because the park will be substantially their own livelihood. I am quite sure that no one here would wish there to be a fight between the amenity organisations on the one hand and the local people on the other. It has been suggested to me that the point I raise is a purely local one. It is not. It is a point of practical administration.
What is the best way to set up a National Park in Snowdonia? The best way is not by imposing upon the people who live there a largely nominated body in which they have not the ultimate confidence. The only way to get a park in Snowdonia is by mobilising the goodwill and economic interest of the people who live there, who not only visit during weekends but live, work and worship there all the year round.
I hope the Minister will stand firm. Wales will do so because we feel profoundly about this matter. In the last few years it seems that whenever any board or Government agency wants to take a piece of land, they come to Wales. The Forestry Commission, the War Department, whenever they want to accommodate their experiments, they come to Wales. When the British Electricity Authority wants to try out some of its Heath Robinson contraptions, it reaches out for a part of Wales. And now come my hon. Friends of the amenity societies—our welcome guests whom we very much like to see coming into Wales, on whom of course very largely we depend economically—who are conducting on their own account and through some of the newspapers of this country a propaganda which is steadily pushing further away from them the mind and psychology of the people who live in the areas in the National Park.
I say that if we are to get a National Park in Snowdonia, we must get it through and with the people who live


there. We cannot get it without them. I hope we shall not try, because the result would be resistance and resentment which nobody on either side of the Committee would like to see ensue.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Cyril W. Black: The outstanding fact about the recent debates on the National Parks has been that nearly all the criticism which has come from the benches opposite has been directed against the machinery or organisation which is to be used for implementing the National Parks Act. Practically no criticism, except of the most general and vague kind, has been levelled against the actual, physical work undertaken. That is most significant.
I have taken the opportunity of studying carefully the Adjournment debate on 8th July which covered much the same ground as that which we are covering this evening. I have tried by the most minute examination to find what were the real criticisms which were being levelled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) against what is being done in connection with the development and the administration of the National Parks.
I have selected what seemed to me to be two of the paragraphs in his speech in which the criticisms that he was offering may be regarded as having been summed up, and I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the extremely vague, general and indefinite character of those criticisms. In one paragraph he said:
I hope we can impress on the Minister this morning the serious concern that is being shown about this matter among many groups of people all over the country.
There is nothing there of a very definite character on which a Minister can fasten and to which he can make any definite answer. Then, in his second critical paragraph, to which I would draw attention, he says, in regard to the appointment of a planning officer:
Because of that lack there have been difficulties in the case of the Lake District Park, which we should all have hoped would be one of the most vital and most successful of the schemes. Some useful work has been done, but many of the most vital jobs remain to be tackled. Friends of mine who know the area very well are disappointed at the lack of progress because there is no planning officer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1952; Vol. 503, cc. 1271 and 1273.]

Again, I say that all that was so general and so vague that it really does not even constitute a case calling for a reply.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: If the hon. Gentleman wilt allow me, may I ask him to remember that I was studiously attempting to be as short as I could, because the Parliamentary Secretary or his right hon. Friend had already received deputations on this very subject, with a very great deal of precise evidence, and I thought it unnecessary to bore him with fuller details?

Mr. Black: It may be that deputations have put before the Minister a more definite cause of criticism, but, certainly, in my submission, no case at all has been levelled against the Minister in the House which would amount to any criticism of the development of the National Parks, and all that has been said by way of criticism has been in respect of the machinery and the administrative bodies that are to deal: with the matter. That seems to me to be the outstanding fact in regard to these two debates.
I think it should be stated, in support of the county councils, who are very gravely concerned in this matter—and I speak as a member of a county council and of its town planning committee—that the county councils have been planning authorities for a little more than four years. I would most strongly submit for the consideration of the Committee that, during the period of a little more than four years, immense advances have been made by the county councils in the field of town planning. It would be the greatest possible mistake to underestimate the contributions that have already been made by the county councils or the contributions which the county councils are capable of making in the future, in a matter which, admittedly, is only in its infancy as far as their administration is concerned.
I do not feel that any kind of case has even been submitted to the Committee, let alone made out, as to what it is that the county councils are supposed to have left undone or what it is that the county councils are supposed to have done wrongly, so far as their part is concerned in the administration of the National Parks. I would very much


hope that, if there is any real criticism that can be brought forward, it will be stated in much more clear and definite, and much less general and vague, terms than those which have so far been used in these two debates.
Without being unduly doctrinaire, it is a fact that the kind of mattter which we are discussing tonight is, generally speaking, approached from rather different standpoints by the two sides of the Committee. Speaking generally, hon. Members opposite have more confidence in joint boards and regional bodies, whereas we, on our side, have more confidence in the local authorities which are democratically elected in the areas which they administer, and that is an important matter of principle that we ought to recognise. It is really part of the difference that may well divide us in this debate this evening.
It is quite clear that the approach to this matter of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East is a rather different approach from that which would be made by many hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Let me read another paragraph from the speech he made on 8th July. He said:
That Measure"—
that is, the National Parks Act—
made many concessions to the position of local authorities. For example, in that Act we provided that the Commission, instead of having wide powers, was little more than an advisory body. Again, it provided that the joint boards or committees to be set up for certain parks were to have only one-third national representatives, two-thirds being from the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1272.]
It is all very well to speak of great concessions having been made to the local authorities, but, after all, are not the local authorities, historically and practically, the bodies most concerned in matters of this kind? Is it really a case of treating them so generously and making concessions to them by allowing them to participate in joint boards of this kind?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The Conservative "Campaign Guide" held out during the last General Election that the Conservatives pressed for a stronger National Parks Commission and that they deprecated the weakening of the recommendations of the Hobhouse Report

which took place in the House. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman reconciles that with what he is now saying.

Mr. Black: I am in the fortunate position that I was not a Member of Parliament when the National Parks Bill passed through the House, and therefore I am quite entitled to disclaim any kind of personal responsibility for anything anybody said at that particular time. I am perfectly entitled to give my own views on the matter, which are views from which I have never deviated on the point of principle involved in this matter.
I do not think it is a right approach to the whole position of the standing and authority of the local authorities to talk about great concessions having been made to them. Furthermore, when the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East speaks about one-third being national representatives and two-thirds being from the local authorities, he implies that the representatives are all of the same character, which, of course, they are not. The two-thirds from the local authorities are people who have gone through the mill by standing for election before they became members of the local authorities, whereas the one-third representatives as they are so called, who are national representatives, are persons appointed by the Minister for the time being and who owe no kind of allegiance whatever to the people in the area in which they are to carry out administrative functions. Indeed, they may be entirely removed from local sentiment and feeling.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is it only local sentiment that has to be taken into consideration in a National Park? Is not the whole object of developing National Parks to attract for the benefit of the local population as many as possible from outside areas?

Mr. Black: I am not saying anything that is inconsistent with that view at all. What I am saying is that in my judgment the people in the locality who represent local feeling and who would ordinarily have a lifetime of knowledge and experience of local problems are, generally speaking, better qualified to carry out functions of this kind than are individuals appointed by a Minister who may be entirely divorced from local sentiment and who may know very little indeed


about local conditions. In my view, that approach to the problem indicates the difference on this point between most hon. Members opposite and most hon. Members on this side of the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Generalising."] Of course I am generalising. I am giving my opinion on the matter. It is an opinion based on some experience of speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and of what I believe to be their general approach to the problem.
It is a fact that a great many of my hon. Friends look upon joint boards with a very great feeling of suspicion. They regard them as being one more step removed from the electorate than are local authorities and as being much more difficult to control or to influence than are local authorities. The local authorities, of course, are directly accountable to the people in the district and, when the time comes for them to stand again for reelection they are subject to dismissal if they incur the displeasure of people in the district.
I hope very much that the Minister will not yield to the case that was put to him in the debate on 8th July, and has been put to him again this evening from the Opposition Front Bench, in the direction of overriding the three local authorities who are very seriously and very intimately concerned with the problems of Snowdonia. It is all very well to argue that the joint board is administratively a more tidy method of dealing with a problem of this kind.
That may or may not be so, but even if a case could be made out that it is a more tidy and neat administrative way of dealing with the problem, surely we are still driven back to the point that we shall not make the success which we all want to see made of the National Parks unless we carry with us the goodwill and sympathy of the people in the district, and particularly of the local authorities concerned. And the way to secure the goodwill of the local authorities concerned is to pay some regard to the views they have as to the type of organisation which is most appropriate in their area, and not to override any deep-seated objections which they may have to the setting up of a joint board.
Whilst we can recognise that there are a great many people who are enthusiasts and idealists about National Parks and

other amenities of that kind—and let us give all due credit to them—in this Committee and in the House we must be prepared to keep our feet on the ground. We must realise that the local authorities have occupied a proud place in the contribution which they have made to amenities, good planning and the development of the beauty of this country. I am satisfied that the Minister will be wise to continue the course upon which he has already embarked of paying very great regard indeed to the views of all the local authorities concerned.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I want to take the debate rather far away from the ground covered by other hon. Members—so far away that I may be altogether out of order, but if so I shall no doubt be told. I want to speak about Scotland. If the Minister feels that he has no responsibility for that country, I hope that he will take an intellectual holiday, so to speak, and merely contemplate in happiness the land of his forefathers.
I feel that probably no part of Britain could benefit more from the ideas behind National Parks, if they are properly developed, than Scotland and, in particular, the Highlands. It seems to me sometimes that the expression "National Park" is rather apt to be misunderstood. A park in some people's minds conjures up a rather useless piece of ground upon which a few fallow deer are raised for the pleasure of the bloated aristocracy; and if it were nationalised other people believe that its uselessness would be increased without any corresponding benefit. That is a false impression of any National Park in this country.
This is not a new idea. There have been many private landowners, for instance, who have developed their land in a way which is perfectly consonant with the idea of National Parks. They have encouraged people to go there. They have tried to preserve its essential beauty, the old buildings upon it and wild life. There are bodies like the Forestry Commission, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and the National Trust for Scotland which are already running large areas of the country as National Parks in the true sense. I myself had something to do with the National Trust for Scotland. We have been presented


with large areas like Glencoe and Kintail which we run as National Parks. Access is allowed to them; we try to encourage the natural life and to preserve them more or less in their natural state.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: I should like to make the point that it has never been necessary to make Glencoe free. It has always been free.

Mr. Grimond: If one took a risk one could go to Glencoe, but there was a risk of life on occasions when people from time to time stalked and shot, and one was liable to get killed. That is no longer the case. In administering such areas, the National Parks Commission if it comes into being should have three things in view; first of all, the preservation of the natural life and beauty of the areas; secondly, the opening of these areas to people who wish to go there for their holidays; and thirdly, the development of those areas. That is most important.
It is important to make it clear that there is no intention of sterilising these areas, to forbid them to agriculture or to forbid any natural development, nor to try to keep the native population from increasing or, indeed, to drive them out of these areas. The very opposite applies. The whole idea rests upon the assumption that recreation, tourism, the natural development of the area, the preservation of its wild life and its beauty can go along hand in hand. Difficult as that may be in practice, it is extremely important that the effort should be made. That is one reason why I welcome the fact that bodies like the Forestry Commission have set up forest parks and have appreciated that they have an obligation not only to grow trees but to encourage people to spend their holidays In the areas, and, in so far as they can, to improve and beautify their forests.
We have in Scotland under the 1949 Act a Nature Conservancy Committee. It is concerned with one of these objects—the preservation of wild life—and most people would agree that Dr. John Berry and his associates have done a great deal with the limited resources at their disposal. I think that of recent years there have been signs that some of the birds and animals which were in danger of dying out in Scotland are beginning to

increase again. The golden eagle is, without doubt, increasing, as are the peregrine falcon and the pine marten. Some people think that the wild cat has been increasing too much. We are indebted to the Nature Conservancy Committee in part for this through the publicity they have undertaken and for the other work which they have done.
It is not always easy to reconcile that with the encouragement of tourism and the development of agriculture and other industries which may be brought into the area. I very much hope that we shall see in years to come far more people from the industrial belts, from the Clyde and southern Scotland, coming to the Highlands to spend their holidays, learning the ways of the countryside, learning the problems that we have to face in the north and being an accepted part of the landscape, so to speak. I hope that the division between the town dweller and the country dweller, between the Lowlands and the Highlands, the factory and the open field, will gradually disappear. The National Park has a very useful part to play in that process. I must say, however, that so long as transport remains expensive and accommodation limited, that process can only be gradual.
But there are many other factors to consider. I hope that as these parks are developed we shall get scientists, agriculturists and all the people who can help us to look at our natural resources with a new eye and assist us to make the best we can of them. I do not feel that these aims are impossible in the long run, although they may difficult to achieve.
With regard to the administration of the parks, I agree that there is a very strong case for allowing the existing local councils to do the job. They are local people who have been democratically elected. But there is no doubt that they will need the assistance of naturalists, scientists and town planning experts. I do not feel that there should be conflict between the local people and national organisations. There has to be confidence and co-operation between the two. The existing conditions will no doubt need to be reviewed from time to time and from park to park. It may be that in one case the local council can do the


job itself with its advisers and in another a joint body may be more suitable.
I feel that this is a changing and developing process and no firm rules can be laid down. Bearing that in mind, I ask the Government what are their longterm proposals for Scotland. Most of the 1949 Act does not apply to Scotland. In the Ramsay Report, five areas have been suggested as suitable for parks, and the forestry parks are beginning to attract people to the countryside and to the Highlands; but it would be very useful if we could have some indication of the Minister's general views and how they can be applied to Scotland.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I do not wish to follow the last speaker into the more northern realms. I would go rather to the far west and say that while we should obviously welcome the idea that people who wish to spend their holidays in Cornwall should be able to do so with the greatest possible access to the beauties of that county, some of us have a certain amount of apprehension with regard to the future land use by Service Departments, in relation to any land taken over for National Parks.
From the point of view of future demands I would ask the Minister if he will give an assurance that if any area in West Cornwall is taken over as a National Park it will still be subject to the present safeguards with regard to the Service demands of Departments. We have heard with considerable misgivings of some of the occurrences in other National Parks. In Snowdonia I believe there was an effort by a Service Department to try to take over some 12,000 acres. We do not want to see their job made any easier.
I would particularly refer to the Lizard area of Cornwall. As will be seen from the recent Helford River Inquiry, it has been said that the National Parks Commission and the Hobhouse Committee consider that a large part of the Lizard area is one of outstanding beauty and, as the Minister will no doubt know, Service establishments are already there. We want to be quite sure that there will be no encroaching on the part of those establishments without the fullest possible consultation.
With regard to the existing establishments, my right hon. Friend will know

that considerable anxiety was caused last year by the proposed establishment of a torpedo range in the Helford River. After a good deal of trouble we were able to get from the Admiralty certain concessions with regard to a place called Polgwidden Cove, which is, I believe, within the intended coast route. That being the case, I want to stress most strongly that we hope to be reassured that if there is any change in the existing use of Polgwidden Cove or the surrounding area the fullest possible consultation will take place and there will not be a repetition of some of the most regrettable happenings before the public inquiry last year.
I want to ask the Minister if he will give us these assurances. First of all, if any of these areas are to become National Parks, will he ensure that there is the fullest possible co-operation with any local authorities before the Service Departments are able to take over any more land. Many of us in Cornwall believe that they already have quite enough. Secondly, will he give an assurance that the facility of the fullest possible public inquiry will be granted so that objectors can state their case, in order that we who live there can do our best to safeguard the district not only for the people of Cornwall but for the many thousands of visitors from home and overseas who visit this most beautiful part of the country.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I rise to ask the Minister a question, and I hope I shall not be too long in putting it. In order to safeguard myself I will ask him, at the beginning of the few remarks which I propose to make, when does he propose to designate the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads as a National Park? In the Hobhouse Report the Broads are last on the list, but that is by no means a true appraisement of their proper claim to be designated a National Park. I submit that there is no district in the country which is more naturally self-contained, with amenities for recreation in the British tradition, than the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Hon. Members will note that I do not speak only of the Norfolk Broads but of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads—and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) agrees with me.
Some years ago, when the National Parks Bill was going through the House, it was my privilege to put the case for the Broads, as I had done previously on an Adjournment debate a little earlier, on which occasion I was able to put into the Library about 50 photographs showing the terrible deterioration which was taking place in the Broads owing to the fact that there was not sufficient interest or money or drive to save this glorious playground not only for the British people but for the many thousands of visitors who patronise the Broads every year.
As I have said, there is no area in the country with a greater claim to be called a National Park. The area has all the recreations in the British tradition; it has sailing—Nelson learnt his sailing there—it has fishing, it has swimming, it has bird watching and it has a flora unsurpassed in its variety by that of any other part of the country. It is tragic that this playground has been allowed to deteriorate year by year so as to reach its present state. I put it to the Minister that the best economy he could make would be for him to take the matter in hand at once and put the Broads on the list of National Parks in order that this terrible wastage of natural and national amenities should be stopped.
The area of navigable waters in the Broads is about half what it was in Nelson's time. Visitors see aquatic vegetation growing, overhanging trees and quay heads going to rot, and it is essential that this glorious playground should be put in order as soon as possible. The longer it is delayed the more it is going to cost. A tremendous amount of money is spent in the region of the Broads every year for 500,000 people visit there; and there is a tremendous number of local authorities responsible for the Broads, but, I am sorry to say, although they take a great deal out of the Broads they put very little back into them.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What about King John?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member ought to be a little more careful about his geography. He is talking about the Wash. He is washed out, because the Wash is miles from the Broads, I can assure him. The Wash, moreover, is a tidal water.

Although King John put a great deal of treasure in, we have not been able to get it out.
I am sorry to take up the time of the Committee, but I do urge the Minister to examine this problem very carefully indeed. The Broads are shrinking year by year, and those hon. Members who have spent holidays on the Broads know very well that if this deterioration is allowed to continue it will not be very long before this region, instead of being a great national asset—and a great dollar earning asset—will become a liability, because the costs of restoring it will be such as to be beyond the capacity of the Government.
I am sorry I have to curtail my remarks, for I should have liked to develop the case a great deal with instances of this deterioration. If the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary have a keen interest in sailing—I hope they have—they should go to the Broads, where I have friends who could take them round so that they could see what a tragic scene it is. I do urge them to examine this problem, and as soon as possible to place the Broads on the list so that they may have a chance to be what they can be—the finest National Park in the country.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The National Parks are certainly a very valuable development in our national policy for the countryside—including what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) described as the aquatic park in his part of the country. Incidentally, the Wash is at least as broad as any of the Broads, and, therefore, may be included amongst them, I think.
However, my object in addressing the Committee for a few minutes tonight is to ask my right hon. Friend to spare a few shillings out of this £10 we are voting to him tonight for access to the countryside; and the particular point I am interested in and wish to urge upon him is the marking of footpaths which, I think, might well be greatly improved, and, particularly—and this point may appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary especially—the marking of mountain paths.
As to mountains in the United Kingdom, I have always found, when I have


tried to climb them, that there are only two classes of people recognised by the mountaineering clubs, and they are the gentlemen who hang on by their eyebrows to escarpments, and the uninformed rabble who go along well-beaten paths, who are looked down upon. Perhaps that is absolutely rather a harsh judgment on my part, but I think it is true, relatively speaking. Abroad, in the Alps, and, to some slight extent, in the Pyrenees, there are very many well-marked paths along which the walker and climber can enjoy himself.
A man may be a serious climber on other days, but there are times when we all want to climb mountains for exercise rather than for excitement, and the lack of paths adequately marked is a real defect of our countryside, and especially of the National Park part of our countryside. Whenever I have tried to climb mountains here, I have spent half the time trying to find the way, or, indeed trying to find the mountain.

Mr. J. T. Price: When the hon. Gentleman says he tries to find the way, or tries to find a mountain, does he not or can he not read an ordnance map? And has he not ever tried to find his way with an ordinary compass, prismatic or non-prismatic? I do not want marked paths. Personally, I regard them as retrograde steps.

Mr. Bell: I am glad of that interruption because it exactly illustrates my point. The difficulty is not to find the way across an ordnance map, with or without a prismatic compass, but to find the way across the countryside when one has got there, which is a very different matter. I always know exactly where I am when I look at the map beforehand, but when in the middle of, for example, the Cairngorms, trying to find the peak one is seeking is quite a different matter —and also finding the way home when one has finished.
There are other and more athletic forms of amusement on mountains, but this attitude of regarding marked paths as an abomination is far too widely held in this country at present. There is far too great a disposition to look down upon those who want marked paths through the National Parks and mountain areas of England and Scotland. Those who do not like marked paths need not go along

them, because there will always be an immense area that is not marked—only too immense—and those who do want marked paths can use them.
I instance the Alps as an illustration where almost every peak has a path up it for people who want to climb it for exercise and amusement. There are also many other ways, possibly not marked at all, for those who like to explore their avenues of approach for themselves. I think that a great advance would be made if my right hon. Friend would do what lies in his power—and I think he has some patronage of rambling and mountaineering societies—to try to encourage those concerned to cater for a wider public than at present; to cater for the public who want to go into the National Parks and the countryside and up the mountains for exercise and pleasure, and not merely as an exercise in virtuosity.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I think that both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this debate has given to those who feel that the position of the county councils and local authorities generally is endangered an opportunity to express that point of view. It has been made clear, if it was needed, that this is not a party political issue. As was shown when the Measure was in Committee, and in its earlier stages, there were differences of opinion expressed from both sides about the most desirable machinery for carrying into operation this, to my mind, imaginative step of National Parks and access to the countryside.
It is perhaps a little unfortunate that this evening we should have had almost entirely speeches referring, very properly, to the position of local authorities. I thought that question had been largely met in our discussions on the Act as it passed through the House, when these points were fully raised and debated; and when I do not think anyone doubted for a moment that local authorities, county councils and other authorities must inevitably have a preponderant voice in the National Parks as they were being established. But it was also made clear—and it is on this that I am anxious to have some expression of opinion from the Minister—that, in addition to that undoubted preponderant voice of the local


authorities, there should be adequate expression of what we can only call the national point of view.
These National Parks are not merely for the residents within the National Park area, right as it is to protect their interests. These National Parks are for the benefit of all our people, and for very many who may come to them from abroad. Therefore, it has been felt for a long time by all who have campaigned over this issue, and not just a few rather wild and starry-eyed idealists, that this is something more than merely trying to make provision for the local population to enjoy local beauty spots.
Here was a conception that we were trying to provide machinery both to enable the preservation of these areas because of their exceptional importance, not just for the local community but for the public at large, and to encourage the wider access to and use of these areas by the general public under some proper system of encouragement, of education and of proper use of the areas, which is obviously so very important.
I want to make it clear both to my hon. Friends who have quite rightly raised the position of the county councils and their views in Wales, and those who have spoken from the benches opposite with regard to their local authorities' opinion, that it has never been our view that any national body could or would wish at any time to ride rough-shod over local opinions.
As I said in the short Adjournment debate which we had a few days ago, very great care was taken by Lord Silkin, when he was taking the Bill through the House, to make full provision, as we felt then, for the rightful place of local authorities in this concept, and there were many Members of the Conservative Party at that time who put very clearly their fears that we had gone too far in making too much provision for local authority representation.
I will quote from the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman who was and still is the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), whom we honour today as the Speaker of the House. He very properly said when the Bill was having its Second Reading:

It surely seems necessary to secure that each of these areas shall be planned as a whole, with some coherent national purpose in view. When more than one county council is involved, I think it should be obligatory to have a joint board to cover the whole area of the park."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1492.]
In fact we did not make it obligatory to have a joint board to cover the whole area of the park, and I was rather astonished to find the Parliamentary Secretary, a few days ago, praying that in aid when he replied to criticisms which I and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling) had put forward.
He said that we had our chance to make these provisions obligatory and we did not do it; therefore the time had passed. But surely, if the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary consider that joint boards are desirable, they should use the machinery that is available to them so far as that is possible. I would remind the Minister of the fact that The Peak Planning Board—we have all congratulated the board upon their very valuable work—seem to have been able to go rather further than the Lake District Board. They have been able, not only to deal with the detailed planning questions which naturally would have to be dealt with—questions of the colour of roofs of different buildings, and so on—but they have attempted to start a much wider approach to the problem of the National Park.
They have at least started to discuss the question of how best they can encourage people in the country as a whole to regard this area as an entity of its own and to explain what are the special features and qualities of this area as distinct from others. That is just the sort of problem with which, I understand, the Lake District Board are confronted, and they find that they are not able to make the same progress. Although they have the board itself, they find that, lacking a planning officer of their own, they are unable to do much more than the rather negative planning that a planning authority would have to carry out in any case. They have not been able to tackle—I hope they will—the wider problem of how to encourage the best possible use of the area, its qualities and its amenities.
The Holiday Fellowship, mountaineering clubs and other organisations have


started mountaincraft schools in the Lake District, in Wales and, I believe, abroad. We should do our utmost to encourage this. More and more people are coming into the mountain areas, like the hon Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) who apparently has grave doubts about his own ability to read a map or use a compass.

Mr. R. Bell: Keenly desirous, rather, of carrying neither a map nor a compass.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That is a matter of taste, but if the hon. Gentleman ventures into the mountain areas he would be advised to carry both and be able to use them. No doubt he and many others will take advantage of the courses which are being started by the Holiday Fellowship and the mountaineering clubs. At the moment this is merely scratching the surface of the problem. I had hoped that the Lake District Board would have been able to give some monetary and other encouragement to schools of this kind in order to avoid some of the tragedies of the past. I do not want to prevent people from going into areas which may be adventurous in character; we want to encourage more people to take the opportunity of this adventure, but it would be of enormous benefit if the Lake District Board could do something to help to develop these schools.
I want to make it clear that when some of us advocate the setting up of these National Parks, we have not in our minds that they should be in conflict with the existing planning powers which are used by the county councils. We desire that their co-operation with the county councils and the county boroughs should bring appreciation of the fact that wider interests are involved in these areas and recognition that in this small and crowded island it is of special importance to preserve certain areas, even though there may be some limited economic advantages in doing otherwise, because in these limited areas the amenity interest is of supreme importance to the country as a whole.
Thirty or more years ago those who were chiefly vocal on the subject of amenity interest in general were, perhaps, the cranks. We have benefited from their efforts. They included such people as our greatest living historian, Professor Trevelyan, and such notable people as Lord Samuel. Probably they

made possible some of the developments which have taken place since. They were the people who led the campaign for National Parks in the earlier days.
In recent times the position has changed in that it has now become a public demand. We have today a mass demand from organisations such as the Youth Hostels Association, the Holiday Fellowship, the Co-operative Holidays Association and the Ramblers' Association, amongst others. If we total up their numbers, we get many hundreds of thousands of young people in spirit, even if they are not young in age. These people represent every class of our community, and we welcome the fact that this demand for the open air and for the fuller use of the open air and the great beauties of our countryside is no longer restricted to any small group or section that can be called "amenity fans," as I think the Parliamentary Secretary rather slightingly referred to them. One of my hon. Friends referred to them in the same terms, so I cannot complain.
We are glad that the Parliamentary Secretary got up Snowdon, even though he was in a mist, and we are glad he got down again. I want to impress upon his right hon. Friend that today we are talking about areas which are the common concern of large numbers of people and all sections of society who take a common interest in their preservation and in their development and fuller use, and that we feel that we have had some reason to fear future developments in this regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) pointed to the particular case of Wales. I know the strong representations that are made from the benches behind me on this matter. I know how important it is that there should be proper and full representation of the Welsh point of view. Indeed, that was what was felt by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) when he declared that, while he proposed pressing on with the establishment of a joint board, he had every intention of seeing there was full representation even among the nationally appointed members who had close contact with Wales and who fully appreciated and sympathised with Welsh aspirations.
That obviously is as essential in Wales as it is elsewhere. It is obvious that the


call which is made and the needs which are to be met are not purely local, and they are the ones which we appreciate in England, as I am sure they are appreciated in Wales and in Scotland, and indeed all over the world. We are merely anxious to ensure that we should not regard these parks in too narrow a sense. After all, what would be the value of our National Park legislation if they were to be governed purely as local areas serving purely local needs?

Mr. G. Roberts: I hope my hon. Friend will not think that we are concerned only with having local parks for local people. What we want to do is to add a National Park for the people of the United Kingdom as a whole to be run and developed primarily by those who live there, and who have the most immediate interest in creating such a National Park.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I would have said to my hon. Friend that he was assured of that in any case, as the joint board has, rightly, a majority representation of those very local interests, with the added guarantee that my right hon. Friend has given that, even among those who would be appointed to look after the specially wider interests that may be involved, there should be people who are particularly amenable to Welsh interests and Welsh sympathies.
I finish merely by asking the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies—I do not want to take up any time that he would wish to take—to do something to set aside the anxieties that are sincerely felt by very many people amongst these various organisations to which I have referred, and in addition by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the representatives of the Standing Committee of which he met a little while ago when they put their point of view to him, and all those other user bodies who have made representations. They represent almost every family in the country, and have a vested interest, in the proper sense of that term, in the development of these park areas. Many of them, in particular the Ramblers' Association, have played a great part in helping to establish these areas by doing footpath surveys and other work, in order to make possible a great ideal.
I hope that we shall not think of the boards' duties merely as the preservation

of the beauties that lie within their areas, important as that aspect of the matter is, but shall think of the wider duties that rest upon the National Parks Commission of ensuring that more and more people come to enjoy the facilities of the parks and the more balanced life they make possible. I hope that people will begin to understand far better than was done in the past the beauties of the countryside and the kind of life that is lived there, to which some of us need urgently to resort, in order to compensate for living in the jangled conditions of modern city life.

9.27 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I think we have all welcomed the debate and are grateful to the Opposition for devoting part of one of their Supply Days to affording the opportunity for a general discussion upon the question of National Parks.
This is not a party or a political question, although I am bound to say that from the speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who opened the debate I was not altogether sure that he was not trying to make it so. I was not unduly put out by his jeers and jibes, delivered to the cheering benches opposite where the attendance at one moment rose to four and at another sank to one. He called us "vandals and Philistines," which I understand is a term of endearment in the Labour Party. His speech had a rather melancholy and nostalgic effect upon me, recalling the Balliol manner of some 40 years ago.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. A. Blenkinsop) has rather changed the note. As the debate proceeded, the attack upon me began to fade away. Perhaps it was because of the artillery behind, which is always disconcerting for officers in the line. The speech we have just heard was in very different terms from the speeches which the hon. Gentleman has made outside. Although just as vague, it was very much more respectful. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there are many problems in this matter and that there are bound to be difficulties in the initial stages. I accept the definition of National Park which was given by Mr. John Dower:
A National Park may be defined, in application to Great Britain, as an extensive area of


beautiful and relatively wild country in which, for the nation's benefit and by appropriate national decision and action, (a) the characteristic landscape beauty is strictly preserved, (b) access and facilities for public open-air enjoyment are amply provided, (c) wild life and buildings and places of architectural and historic interest are suitably protected, while (d) established farming use is effectively maintained.
I accept that definition except that I think the phrase "Great Britain" is not quite correct. So far as I know, nobody has ever ventured to designate or to administer a Scottish National Park from London. However, I took note of the observations of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and I will see that they are passed to the Secretary of State for Scotland, although I shall not intervene in a field which is not mine.
Of course, there is a great deal of difference and confusion about the word "park." Certainly there are great differences between a National Park in the United Kingdom and one in Canada or in the United States. Those are large countries with small and scattered populations. Here we have only a small country with a very large population in relation to its area, and if one is dealing, as I am, only with England and Wales, that is even more true. So there are special problems and difficulties.
It has been suggested that I personally have not shown any interest in the National Parks. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word about that. Of course I cannot claim, owing to age and those infirmities which come with age, to be more than what one might call a moderate hiker. Nevertheless, walking is about the sole recreation I have, and I still take long walks. I confess that I prefer to take them alone and unaccompanied by Press photographers—

Mr. George Chetwynd: rose—

Mr. Macmillan: —but that is no doubt just a Victorian and reactionary attitude. I have a particular affection for National Parks because it was in the National Park at Jasper that I was so fortunate as to become engaged to my wife.
If I cannot perform tremendous athletic feats myself, I can do them vicariously, for I have in the Parliamentary Secretary one of the most distinguished climbers and ramblers and

bicyclists of the day. I think there is a certain jealousy in this tremendous attack upon the Parliamentary Secretary, and anyway I have no need to defend him. I need only say that in all the undertakings I have ever had in my life I have never had a better or more loyal or more efficient colleague. Whether in view of this debate or whether by chance, I understand that my hon. Friend climbed yesterday to the top of Snowdon in order to address near the summit or at the summit a party of young Conservatives. Of course to one who has climbed the Matterhorn that is a small affair, but still it is something.
There are other matters which I must frankly confess have caused me, both as a Cabinet and as a Departmental Minister, anxieties as great as those of the National Parks—the great problems of foreign affairs, the ever present pressure of our economic situation and the many problems which I have inherited in my Department about which quite a lot needs to be done: housing, rents, rating and valuation, local government reform, the Town and Country Planning Act. So there are plenty of other things as well as the National Parks. Still, in the interval of thinking about those, I have tried and I intend to do my duty both from inclination and from a sense of duty in this matter.
It is quite true that the National Parks had their origin in the work of enthusiasts. The hon. Gentleman used the word "cranks." I do not know that he ought to have described Professor Trevelyan as a crank but, if he ever showed any sign of crankiness, he showed that he had become sane by voting Tory at the last election.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. Gentleman might add that I merely said they had been called cranks and went on to say that it was an unfair definition of such eminent people.

Mr. Macmillan: At any rate that is what happened to him. Of course, we all welcome the work of the pioneers, but they have not exclusive rights of property in these matters. It is only fair to recall that while the National Parks represent one of the methods, this movement which the hon. Gentleman has quite properly admired and praised has taken other forms also.
There was the Town and Country Planning Act and different Acts leading up to the Act of 1947. It has been a parallel movement with that of the National Parks, and, therefore, the National Parks do not arrive suddenly in a field not at all interested in planning or in the preservation of amenities. They come and take their place in a country where all these powers and responsibilities are placed upon the county authorities in every part of the island.
I think it is clear that the Minister should recognise, as my predecessor did, and as I, certainly, do from my experience in my short period of office, that the county authorities are trying to carry out their work, quite apart from the National Parks, in trying to preserve amenity and beauty with a great deal of effort and energy, and that they are doing it very well indeed.
Indeed, sometimes, I find myself in the situation of having to make very difficult decisions in present economic conditions in balancing advantages in deciding between economic and industrial development, on the one hand, without which the country would fade away altogether, and the claims of amenity upon the other. While, therefore, this is going on, it might be asked how does the duty of preserving amenity in general, which the county councils have under the ordinary town and country planning legislation, differ from their duties under the National Parks Act. Perhaps I might sum it up in this way.
While the county councils have a general duty to do what they can to keep the balance between industrial needs and the development of material resources, on the one hand, and amenity interests, on the other, in those areas which are designated as National Parks, amenity and access are to be given an overriding position. That is really the difference. It is just that which distinguishes the National Parks from the general functions of the county councils over the rest of the country.
In all parts of the United Kingdom, we ought to try to preserve what is one of our greatest assets—the beauty of the countryside—and we should try to make the countryside accessible to the dwellers in the towns, but, whereas in the country as a whole, we must frankly face the facts

that, if it is to exist and continue as a country able to keep its population at a high standard of living, proper regard must be had to industrial and material needs, and the creation of wealth is a paramount need, in the National Parks, the position is the other way round and the amenity considerations have the prior authority.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would the right hon. Gentleman find some way of conveying that rather generous definition, which I accept, in equally forceful terms to the British Electricity Authority, who seem to have almost unlimited power to disfigure the Lake District and other parts of the country with overhead cables?

Mr. Macmillan: I shall come to that point, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised it. It is, of course, sometimes necessary, even in National Parks, to make some concession. Reservoirs, hydro-electric schemes, the quarrying of minerals—are we to shut out the whole of Derbyshire, for instance? It is impossible, and there is also the defence of our native land, which is no unimportant matter. Regard must be had to all these considerations, and I will do everything I can to help.
I have, as it were, to fight that battle, but it is only fair to say that there is another side. On the question of defence, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) asked me some questions, and I will certainly look further into them. So far as I am informed, it is necessary that there should always be an inquiry if there is a valid objection, and I shall certainly see that there is an inquiry if there is an objection. I shall seek to do my best with the Minister of Defence, and, since I was able to give him political advice for many years, perhaps he will be willing to accept the same again.
Of course, people take different views about amenities. Some people regard all reservoirs as horrible, while others find them rather attractive. Some dislike all forms of trees; others reserve their displeasure for softwoods. There is no arguing about taste, but on the whole I think that the National Parks Commission, by the authority which they are gradually developing, can be trusted to bring about a sort of body of doctrine on these matters which will be very valuable to all administrators.
I feel very grateful to them for the work they are doing. They are the essential watchdogs of amenities. I am particularly grateful to the chairman, Sir Patrick Duff, who is a very distinguished civil servant of long experience and who has shown great patience and great determination. He and his colleague are not restricted merely to the supervision of the National Parks. It is their duty to keep the Minister conscious, as it were, over the whole field and wherever they may see vandalism threatened even outside the area of a National Park it is their duty to draw the Minister's attention to those dangers.
In the National Parks we are giving and must give the higher priority to amenities, and it is for that reason we are selecting them. The question of designation is an important one, but it would not be right for me to say anything concerning the North Yorkshire moors, because I think that an inquiry starts either today or tomorrow. That is the one immediately before me for decision.
Now it comes to the question of the administration of the National Parks. Nothing has gone wrong except the administration, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black). Everything is all right, but the administration is all wrong. The administration is governed by the Act of 1949. As I was reminded, I did not take any part in those debates, and therefore I have an impartial view about them. I have not committed myself on either side. But there are all kinds of duties entrusted to the Commission, and to carry them out properly and effectively requires, especially in the initial stages as was well said by many hon. Members, rather careful handling.
There is not a great deal of money to be spent at the moment. I would like to see a little more, but, quite frankly, I would rather build houses for the people than hostels at the moment, and I think they would like them better.

Mr. Blenkinsop: On the question of finance, has the right hon. Gentleman thought of the possibility of bringing in an amending Bill to allow us to use the Land Fund as was originally intended?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think I could advocate bringing in an amending Bill

in order to use somebody else's funds for these purposes. However, I will look at it.
I do not propose to build large hostels unless I can find some method which would not injure other things. But there is a certain amount to be done, and we will do everything we can within reason. Very often quite small sums can produce good results.
The chief attack is about machinery. What is the complaint all about? When it comes to appointing the Minister's appointees to the Dartmoor Board I have the duty to appoint six members. The National Parks Commission put forward eight names, presumably because in their opinion they were good people.
And the attack upon me is that I was so malignant and so anxious to undermine the authority of National Parks that I committed the disgraceful act of consulting a body of men whom hon. Members opposite automatically seem to think of as criminal—the county council. I said, "Here are eight men recommended to me, can you say which six are agreeable to you?" I cannot see anything wrong in that. I see no crime in it, and I do not intend to stand in a white sheet.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman committed a crime, but he departed from the assurances that his predecessor gave to the House of Commons.

Mr. Macmillan: I propose to depart from quite a lot of things that my predecessor did. Now we come to the question of The Peak. Here my predecessor was much attacked and it was said that he should have appointed different people to the board. I have found in my life that quite a lot of people think that they should be put on boards, but it does not necessarily follow that they are the most suitable people. It is now agreed that this board is doing very well. It is a joint board and in fact it agreed to do what I wish the others would do—appoint one of the existing county council planning officers to be the planning officer of the board. I understand that considerable progress has been made, and I hope that the board will be given a good chance.
Then there is the Lake District. We have had nine modest quarrels about the Lake District, but, on the whole, things seem


to be going fairly well, except that the arrangements did not conform quite so closely to the precise theology as to whether there should be three clerks or one. As for Snowdonia, the Parliamentary Secretary, at any rate, has shown practical interest in Snowdonia because he is the only hon. Member who has recently climbed to the top of Snowdon. I am bound to say that when I go it will be by railway.
What was the trouble about Snowdonia? I should have thought that what mattered was that there should be a good National Park in Snowdonia, that the people of North Wales, and indeed of all Wales, should be happy about it and that it should do what we want it to do —provide a National Park for the people of Great Britain. How are we going to do that? I must be very frank. I saw a deputation of which I think the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) was a member. It was an immense deputation and a large assembly room of the Ministry was filled entirely with Welshmen. I have, of course, a natural sympathy with Welshmen, for I come from an allied, though superior tribe.
I listened to their arguments against a joint board, which they put forward with a passion hardly credible and argued with rhetorical and forensic skill beyond belief; and then it was said that I had weakly submitted to their pressure. There was very little else that I could do. Do the Committee know what it was that they wanted? What is it that so excites the "Manchester Guardian"? They wanted, instead of a joint board—I hardly like to mention it—a joint committee. [Laughter.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: Hon. Members may think that it is a matter for general laughter, but there is a point of substance in it. It is that a joint committee has no powers other than advisory, whilst a joint board has the powers of a planning authority.

Mr. Macmillan: They wanted a joint committee very badly. I was impressed by their genuine feeling and also by their anxiety that Wales and its county councils should play their part in this undertaking. So what is the best thing to do? Is it best to try to force these people to accept what they do not want three years after the Act was passed, lo ram

it down their throats? Or is it best to make some kind of compromise offer and to say, "You may call yours a committee, but will you apply six conditions which, if applied, might be interpreted by the most vigorous nationalist as giving it almost the appearance but not the substance of a board?" I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caernarvon did not mention those conditions. The trouble is that they have not answered yet, and after the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon I feel a little hurt about it. It was some time ago, and I have pressed them very hard to accept. I beg the hon. Gentleman to use his influence to see that this compromise goes through as quickly as possible, because it would be a fine thing if we could get it agreed.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the conditions? We do not know them.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman read the rest of the letter, so I thought he had seen the back of it as well. I will send it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. G. Roberts: In reply to the Minister, may I say that the three county councils are considering those conditions and within a very few days, I am informed, the Minister will receive a reply.

Mr. Macmillan: I am very glad indeed to have that assurance. I am sure it will do a lot of good.
There are some other points which I must go through rapidly in order to get the matter straight. There are five Parks —The Peak, the Lakes, Snowdonia, Dartmoor and the Pembrokeshire coast. There designation orders have been made. There are the North Yorkshire Moors in respect of which an inquiry has just started. Then there is the Cornish Coast where the Commission are discussing the draft designation order with the local authorities. Then there are Exmoor and the Yorkshire Dales where the Commission are making a preliminary survey.
Then there are the Broads. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) has now left the Chamber. I will do my best to study what he said. I congratulate him on his plea that the Broads should be considered as our best dollar earner. That was a good one, but I am not sure that he can get away with it.
I must say something about public paths. The Department has been much assisted in this matter by the admirable work of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society and by the Central Rights of Way Committee which was set up by the Society, the Ramblers' Association and others. A survey is going on, and by the end of the year I think we shall have a good idea of the result. With regard to orders for making, diverting or closing public paths, I have tried to impress once more upon local authorities their full powers, duties and responsibilities.
With regard to the long distance routes, it is hoped to get the Pennine Way completed by the end of the autumn, and there will be two-way traffic. It will be possible to go by the hard route over the top of Kinder Scout or by the softer route along the bottom. It would have been ready before, but there had to be an inquiry and I could not prevent the inquiry under the Act. If it had not been for that inquiry I think it would have been ready by Easter, but owing to the inquiry it will not be ready until the end of the autumn.
Then, as regards other access requirements, I think the procedure contemplated under the Act is going forward pretty well. Reference was made to some statement about which there was some misunderstanding. There is no doubt that the local highway authority is responsible for the repair and maintenance of paths, but until it has been settled for certain whether a path is a public path the local highway authority is very often unwilling to spend money on repairing it. Therefore, until the survey is completed it is impossible for me to say more on this subject and it is not very wise for a local highway authority to spend money on what may afterwards be declared not to be a public path. That survey is going on, and in the meantime we are doing our best. This is a very important matter for walkers and ramblers, and we shall do all we can.
We have had a very good and useful debate. I would say to all those who want to make this thing work—and many hon. Members have mentioned this, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) and, from the other side of the Committee, the hon.

Member for Caernarvon—that if the machinery is to work we must get people into the habit and spirit of working it together.
I do not think it would be wise for me to get into public rows and to bring actions of mandamus and to enforce the authority of the Minister—especially upon the Welsh—until all the machinery of debate, discussion and conciliation has been exhausted. Even if we have to wait a little, I am sure that in the long run we shall get far better results for everybody concerned. Therefore, I hope that those who are keenest about this movement and are most concerned about it will give all possible support to the National Parks Commission, as I shall. I pay my tribute to them once again. In addition, all support must be given to local authorities. I would ask hon. Members to use their personal influence and to see that these matters are worked harmoniously instead of being additional irritations between the members of the county councils.
I have made my small contribution. The footpaths which run through my home were carefully marked before the war with little notices saying: "From such-and-such a place to such-and-such another place." They were distributed all over my property. It is not very large, but there were a considerable number of notices. Unfortunately, immediately on the declaration of war the active Home Guard, led by a number of Admirals, painted out the names of all the places to which the paths led, or took them away and put them in inappropriate places, hoping thus to mislead the invading forces. I must admit that we have not got them quite sorted out yet; but we are working away at the job.
I was pleased to hear what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead, that there is not as much time in the country as in the town. There is always so much to do in the country and it is a job to get those little extra things done which take somebody an afternoon or perhaps two or three days. We are anxious to get on with the National Parks; we are anxious to see the parts of the Act dealing with access properly administered and going forward; but I am most anxious that people should not just angle about in the hope of making an attack upon a Minister or getting a little support here and there to carry out


what they say they really mean. If they think that we have not carried out our duty let them divide the Committee.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. Kaberry.]—put, and agreed to

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE

National Assistance (Adaptation of Enactments) Regulations, 1952 [copy presented 13th May], approved.—[Commander Galbraith.]

EDUCATION (ECONOMIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to draw the attention of the House to the disastrous effect of the economies now being made in the education service. Sufficient time has now elapsed for us to have a broad picture of the effect of these economies in the schools of this country. It was a black day for the schools when Circular 242 was published by the Ministry of Education, a circular which, unhappily, was the forerunner of many circulars damaging to the expansion of the education service.
In the official journals of every organisation interested in education, leading articles have appeared protesting vehemently against the Minister's policy. With the passing of time, those protests, far from falling away, are increasing, in crescendo. The whole atmosphere of the education service has been changed by the present Administration and is now on the defensive. It is quite clear that the Minister has put back the clock in the education service at least 20 years, and there is no responsible organisation which supports the policy that she is pursuing.
I am reminded that at the recent conference of the National Union of Teachers, Mr. Ronald Gould, the general secretary, is reported as saying that
some authorities had economised with such an excess of zeal that no one could deny that the fabric of education had been unmistakably frayed and in some cases certainly damaged.

He went on to warn the conference that
necessary work was being deliberately deferred—leaking roofs would remain leaking, unpainted schools would remain unpainted, and bad sanitary conditions would remain unchanged.
It is quite clear that the quality, the size and the general development of our education service is a highly political matter. The plain fact is that the Conservative Party savagely resent the extension of educational opportunity for the children of the mass of the people, while the Labour Party regard this expansion as one of the highest priorities. I submit that the economic difficulties which face this country are not the main motive for the present sadistic attack upon the education service of this country, but rather it is an attempt to restore the old privileges and the old lack of balance which prevailed in the education service immediately before the war.
The Minister is taking credit for the fact that, although she has appealed for economies the expenditure on education will be increased this year. It is, of course, worth notice that even if the 1944 Act were put in cold storage, even if there were no increase in prices, with the increased school population which we shall have during the coming year there is bound to be an increase in the cost of education, if we mark time; and the biggest part of the increased expenditure which there is in education is due to increased administrative loan charges, which have been made necessary by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the past eight months, to the increased cost of school milk with the removal of support, and also to the increased cost of school meals. The cost of coke has increased by 10s. a ton, the cost of school paper has increased by 40 per cent., and the cost of school books has gone up by 50 per cent. Yet the Minister of Education boasts that there is a slight increase in the actual expenditure on education.
The Association of Education Committees waited upon the Minister soon after the issue of this circular and made it perfectly clear to her that in its opinion a 5 per cent. economy would be a menace to "the essential fabric of education"—whatever that may mean. I hope tonight to obtain from the Parliamentary Secretary some indication of what is "the


essential fabric of education" so far as his Department is concerned.
There is, of course, in the world of education considerable doubt about what the Minister really means by "the essential fabric of education." "Education," the Journal of the Association of Education Committees, the "Schoolmaster," and the "Educational Supplement of The Times" have all made reference to the fact that some authorities have made savage economies; others have made small economies. The official journal of the Visual Aid Society in this country says in its June commentary:
There is no doubt that the Minister's policy has been interpreted in different ways in different L.E.A. areas. In some areas the cuts have penetrated far deeper than the 'frills,' whereas in others the reductions are so nominal that the Minister has sent back and asked for more.
The education authorities of the country are apparently being told by the Minister now that they must decide themselves what is "the essential fabric of education." My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) raised the question of Chester, where an economy of 7 per cent. in the education estimate has been made, and the Minister airily said it is not for her to interfere. Apparently the Minister of Education is going to interfere only if the economies are not savage enough; where authorities want to spend money upon educational opportunities for their youngsters, the Minister believes it right for her to step in and send round these letters that are so infuriating local authorities.
The Minister has given a little indication of what she considers to be the "essential fabric of education." In one breath she tells us that she regards the health service in the schools as very important, and in another she says that swimming, which every teacher in the country acknowledges is an essential part of the physical training of the children, is not an essential part. In the Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Education issued this year, entitled "The Health of the School Child," these words are recorded:
The child must be regarded as a unity, and his education should not be planned to meet the assumed needs of one side only of his life. It is the physical and mental and social child who goes to school, and any sound scheme of education ought, therefore, to cater for the whole child.

But we find that the Amateur Swimming Association is complaining that, as a result of Circular 242 of the Minister of Education, a number of local authorities have decided to cut out entirely school instruction in swimming—while Bournemouth has reduced expenditure on swimming by 50 per cent. In the opinion of the Amateur Swimming Association, this action is impairing the fabric of education. The Minister, on the other hand, has informed this association that, whilst agreeing that instruction in swimming is desirable, she could not at present regard it as absolutely necessary. Does she consider music as a frill? Is art a frill? Are we back to the mentality in which the Ministry of Education consider the three R's as the only essentials for education?
I now wish to refer to the Minister's Circular 245, which is a charter for slum schools which has aroused the resentment of the teaching profession from one end of the land to the other. By this circular the Minister is deliberately creating conditions for larger classes in the schools. She has stood at that Box—and I gave the Parliamentary Secretary notice that I intended to criticise the Minister's policy in this regard—and indicated to the House that she believes it is inevitable that we shall have larger schools in the future.
As a schoolmaster I tell the House that to countless children I believe this means a sentence that they shall live in an undergrowth of ignorance and provide cheap, uneducated labour for tomorrow. The tragedy is that the Minister seems to be wielding the economy axe with a greater enthusiasm than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We can understand that the Chancellor is imposing certain policies upon the Ministry, but we expect the Ministry to put up a fight for the education service; yet there is not a hint of any fight from that Department in defence of the education service, and it will take us many, many years to repair what is being done by the present policy.
The Minister has already indicated that, so far as she is concerned, nursery schools do not count. The pressure put upon the Minister at Question Time by my hon. Friends to get her to prevent local authorities from savagely closing down their nursery schools has met with the bland reply, "It is not for me to


interfere. That is a matter for the local authorities." In Warwickshire, Somersetshire, Shropshire, Dorset, Bath and Middlesbrough attacks have been made upon the nursery schools. In Cornwall, Walsall and Shropshire they are even attacking schools for handicapped children. The Minister has stopped us having a school for handicapped children in Wales—a school which would have been under way during this current year. In Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, Buckinghamshire, Cornwall and Somerset attacks have been made on the school dental service, where they propose to save money on their estimated expenditure. Other authorities are saving money on school repairs.
This policy is the greatest disaster that has befallen our schools in the last 20 years. In Wales it means a 40 per cent. reduction in our building programme for the next year, and in 18 months' time children knocking at the doors of the schools will be refused admission—children of the very people who were scattered over the battlefields of the world when the 1944 Act was going on to the Statute Book, and who were promised a new deal in education after the war.
I have taken advantage of this Adjournment debate so that I might at once warn the House that there is seeping into our schools a sense of frustration due to this parsimonious policy, and also give the Ministry of Education an opportunity to tell the country what they mean by "the essential fabric of education." Is it not one of indivisibility? Is not education a broad system and one which cannot be confined by the old narrow definitions?
I earnestly hope that the Ministry will be aware of the Association of Education Committees' Conference, held at Scarborough a few weeks ago, when Mr. Longden, one of the most distinguished directors of education in this country, pointed out that the definition of education today is vastly different from what it was 30 years ago. We have a broader conception of education today. We are not catering for an illiterate democracy; we are catering for a literate democracy and a cultured democracy. I believe in my heart that the nation will not readily forgive the Government if they inflict serious

damage, as they look like doing, upon a service which is vital to the well-being of us all.

10.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pick-thorn): There are, I suppose, few human enjoyments so great as virtuous indignation; moral wrath which is also in defence of professional interests—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: And in defence of children.

Mr. Pickthom: —must be peculiarly enjoyable.

Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is still the rudest man in the House.

Mr. Pickthorn: We have had very extreme epithets; black, proceeding vehemently, savage resentment, motives for sadism—I was not quite sure whether "sadism" was meant literally—deliberately creating conditions for larger classes; and it was rather odd that all these things should lead up to the climax of "seeping." I should have thought that after so many great words it would have been an inundation and not a seeping that was being complained of.
I am bound to say that accusations of ill manners in this connection are hardly decent when the continual assumption is made of evil motive upon this side and especially on the part of Ministers. I make no assumption of evil motives at all.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman has done so.

Mr. Pickthom: I have made none whatever. I think that a very proper motive is professional interests. It is the motive of every great trade union which is the great force behind so many hon. Members opposite. I think today that hon. Members opposite are interested in the children. There has been no attempt on this side at all in this controversy to implicate any charge of evil motive on the part of critics. It is a little too much, I think, when they not only characterise us as making attacks upon education but suggest that the reason why these attacks are launched is that there is a savage resentment on this side at the extension of educational opportunity.
I do not want to be autobiographical, but there can be no man in the world who


owes more to the extension of educational opportunity than I do. I think that I can say this without immodesty—no one can more conscientiously say that he has worked continuously through a long professional life for the extension of educational opportunity.
Compliments to one's superior, even when one's superior is very properly absent, are perhaps never very convincing, but nothing could be more unjust than to say that my right hon. Friend has done nothing to stand up for the interests of education. What she has done in that regard—everybody in the House knows it is, not unnaturally, what cannot be observed except by those most closely connected with the matter either in the Treasury or in the Ministry. To any hon. Gentleman who thinks any evidence of mine of any value I can say that I am sure that nobody could have been more resolute or more courageous than she has been in that regard.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickthorn: I have not many minutes left, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does that mean that the Minister herself never agreed with the cuts but had to bow down to a majority decision?

Mr. Pickthorn: My words meant exactly what they said. I cannot be cross-examined in the amount of time which I have left to me. I am quite willing for that to happen whenever there is a proper occasion.
The truth is quite simple in this matter. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know it quite well. I take leave to doubt whether those who have consciously criticised their own arguments and consciously examined their own consciences are really quite certain that they would not have had to try as much as we have had to try to see that no avoidable expenditure was made upon education. The fact is that the economic and financial situation with which we were confronted—whether we attribute it to the wickedness of our enemies, to the incompetence of the last Government, to the sun-spots or whatever it is to which we attribute it—was such that no Government taking office last autumn could have put off the

duty of making every economy that could be made without plainly doing more harm than good. That is the quite simple fact from which we all start.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Why the tax concessions?

Mr. Pickthorn: I cannot discuss the Budget and the Finance Bill now. Again, I am quite willing to do so on another occasion. I am, however, interested to know that hon. Gentlemen opposite think that tax concessions ought not to be made.
About what the "essential fabric" of education is, I do not think that is really as difficult as it has been made out. This is not a phrase which I invented, and I do not think I should have invented it, but, as such phrases go, it seems to me better than such phrases generally are, and, as the fox terrier may not be able to define a rat but knows a rat when it sees one, so I think anybody who has really tried to look into the possibility of economy in education has known pretty well what the main fabric of education was.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not mind how often I give way, only I will not have it said afterwards that I failed to answer all the points put to me.

Mr. Morley: This is the kernel of the whole argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), and it is what we all want to know. What does the present Ministry consider to be the essential fabric of education? Will the Parliamentary Secretary kindly give us a definition?

Mr. Pickthorn: I have just said that it may not be easy to define but I do not think it is frightfully difficult to recognise. Also, I should have more chance to answer the hon. Member for Cardiff, West if other hon. Members would keep their seats.
It is reasonably plain that in education, as in anything else, it is possible to make a kind of tripartite division. There are some things for which everybody is certain that the resources must be found so long as they can be found for anything, anything except the mere materials of


existence—because we have all got to face the fact that we may get to that stage —but there are some parts of education which everybody will agree are essential so long as we can provide anything more than the mere material necessities of existence. That is the essential part in the strictest sense.
Then there are some parts which we should normally describe as essential, though a sad compulsion of renunciation may not be so difficult to imagine.
Thirdly, there are those things to which the hon. Gentleman referred—it is not my word and, indeed, I do not wish to do him too much credit for I do not think it was original with him—as "frills." Out of these it is reasonable to suppose that a higher percentage of economy can be got than elsewhere. But it is not to be taken for granted or assumed that even in these strict essentials there may not be means for economy. It is a fallacy to suppose that in those there is no room for economy.
It is said that it is sweet and noble to see brothers in one house agree, and I was delighted the other day in the debate on the Civil List to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, West cheering when the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) was speaking.

Mr. G. Thomas: That is quite untrue.

Mr. Pickthom: I was here and heard him cheer this passage:
What surprises me in a debate of this kind is when, for instance, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), a financial expert, objects to the House examining expenditure in connection with the Royal Family as we would examine expenditure in connection with every other Department of State.
It is not a Department of State, but we will let that pass.
I have sat on the House of Commons Select Committee on expenditure for the last four or five years and I have never known an occasion when we examined expenditure in detail and were not able to find some example of the need for economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1387–88.]
If that is true of every Department of State, and indeed of the Crown itself, then there is no reason to assume—

Mr. Fernyhough: The Minister did not accept that argument.

Mr. Pickthorn: —it is not true also of education. It is a complete fallacy to suppose that because something is part of the essential fabric of education that, therefore, there is not room in that for some economy.
I come to the nursery schools as one of the topics mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Compulsory education begins at five. At present, therefore, it is plain that where there must be a choice, compulsory education at and over five must take precedence over education before. At present there are 454 nursery schools with 22,500 pupils and a number of nursery classes in primary schools. My right hon. Friend has assured the Nursery Schools Association that she intends to preserve the principle of nursery schools, and in considering proposals from local education authorities she has declined to accept a wholesale and indiscriminate closure.
I do not know how much the hon. Member wants me to spend time on going through all the particular cases. Warwickshire failed to convince the Minister of the reasonableness of their proposals, and I believe that their proposals are not to be carried out. Dorset were able to satisfy the Minister, there being no industrial need there. Leicestershire were able in three of four cases to show that the accommodation was needed for children of statutory school age and, therefore, precedence must be given there. The Somerset cases are still under discussion. I think those are most of the ones he mentioned.
Now I come to swimming classes. Everybody agrees that we have got to educate the child, but then it is sometimes argued that anything that is good and useful for the child is education and that means having a broader conception. But the fact is that conception may get so broad that there is nothing left. I cannot tell how many authorities are planning—

The Question having been proposed aften Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.